The poor old Ford Mustang had an awful time in the ’70s. It fell off the wagon in the late ’60s, gaining weight that culminated in the zaftig 1971-73 model. Next, in a drastic reversal, it became an anemic Super Pinto in the guise of the Mustang II. Ah, the Mustang II: They may have sold tons of them but then again, Nehru jackets, wide ties and leisure suits were also popular during those years. With the debut of the Fox-body ’79 Mustang, things finally started getting back on track. In 1982, Mustang desirability and performance levels returned to 100% with the return of the V8-powered GT.
Actually, it wasn’t the first time the 5.0-liter, 302 cu in V8 had been available in the Fox-based Mustang. In 1979, its inaugural year, a 140-hp version had been available as an option; then Gas Crisis II struck, after which it was withdrawn. Its absence left performance-minded Mustang buyers to choose between a turbocharged four-cylinder mill or a smaller 120-horse, 255 cu in (4.2-liter) V8.
That situation changed with the ’82 GT. The 302, now in “High Output” form, was back. Compared with the ’79 version, this 5.0 certainly had been breathed on with new valves, a more aggressive camshaft, aluminum intake manifold and sand-cast pistons. In addition, GTs got cast-iron exhaust manifolds and a Y-shaped (2 into 1) dual exhaust pipe. The result of it all was a bump of 17-horsepower, to 157. Interestingly, the 4.2-liter V8 (with 37 fewer horses than the 5.0) was also available on the GT, but only with the automatic. It’s doubtful that many GTs were ordered that way.
image: www.mustang1.net
Of course, there were a number of cosmetic upgrades as well. The biggest changes were up front, where an exclusive air dam, unique grille, Marchal fog lights and a non-functional hood scoop made for a much more aggressive face. Aluminum wheels, “5.0” badges on the front fenders, and a rear spoiler rounded out the changes. Additional and more-detailed information on the ’82 GT can be found here on www.mustanggt.org.
During the early ’80s, the Mustang just kept getting better and better. It could be argued that the 1982 model year marked the beginning of the Fox Mustang’s renaissance. Out of the 130,418 Mustangs made that year, 24,799 were GTs–a portion that would increase as the GT carried on and was developed further.
I have just one nit to pick. The 1983 GT lost the cool-looking grille, air dam and fog lights. Don’t get me wrong, the ’83 looks nice–I especially like the blackout stripe on the nose with the die-cut “GT” showing the paint color in the corner, but the ’82’s nose looked better. You could tell it meant business.
One year after the GT returned, a GT convertible reappeared after a ten-year absence. Finally, Ford was rebounding after having flirted with disaster during 1979-81. The Mustang II days were fading away as quickly as the Fox Mustang was becoming more and more desirable.
To its credit, Ford did not rest on its laurels and continued to make improvements. In just a year or two, the Euro-inspired SVO Mustang would join the GT and convertible, making for a very diverse lineup indeed. All three of these special Mustangs would capture the hearts–and wallets–of Mustang lovers for years to come.
Here we have the special seats and upholstery of the GT. This kind of reminds me of the “mod art” seats of the late ’70s Porsche 928. I like it.
Despite its Fairmont origins, the Mustang’s instrument panel included much more comprehensive gauges. I initially thought that “Powered by Ford” plate was original, but it appears to have been added later on. Note the radio delete plate.
I spotted this choice ’82 at a September 30 show hosted by my old employer, Dahl Ford. The featured club was the Quad City Mustang Club, but in addition to the fine selections of Mustangs–from ’65 to a new Gotta Have It Green ’13 GT–there were some cool cars of the non-Mustang variety, including a couple of ’85-’86 Cougars, a ’59 Edsel Corsair and a ’78 Mustang II King Cobra (stay tuned). Car show season certainly is winding down, but on this day the weather was great and I enjoyed myself. Really, is there any better way to spend a bright fall Sunday than looking at a bunch of neat old cars?
Thanks for the memory; I owned two of this generation from new, a 1980 and a 1990. They took me from high school to college, and well into the early years of my career.
The 1980 had a tiny steering wheel, similar to the one in the next-to-last photo, and strangely, the pad in the center of it did not activate the horn; that was done by pushing in on the turn signal stalk, much as with some French cars of the same era. I always assumed it was done to prepare for impending Federally mandated airbags, which were scheduled for a few years later and subsequently delayed.
The 1990 was built much better – far fewer squeaks and rattles – but for some reason it developed water leaks from the top of the door frames. The only time I ever experienced it was when I braked hard on a rainy day, and a stream of water would shoot into my and my passenger’s lap. Good times!
Oh yes, that goofy horn on a stick. My ’80 had that. It took some getting used to.
I’ve seen TATA buses use the same horn design. Felt strange to me too.
Let’s not forget: the whole package – body, dash, tiny steering wheel, horn-on-turn-signal-stalk – was straight off the Fairmont line.
In later years, with the other Fox bodies gone, the Mustang came into its own. But – while I never owned or drove a Mustang of this vintage, I DID drive a Fairmont.
It was not a bad car, although seemingly not up to the red-hot dreams of Mustang buyers. But it was what it was; as the Mustang reincarnated was what the Mustang always was.
A repackaged compact car…the Fox-based one even more obviously than the original.
I was once given a die-cast of this gen Mustang as a kid. We didn’t get them in the full-size flesh over here of course but I remember being disappointed at the time by how much it looked like a cheap imitation Escort XR3i (pictured). To my Euro-centric adult eye it still kind of does.
Somehow earlier Mustangs managed to look more emphatically American than this does, and that works better for me. I can’t help thinking this is Dearborn aping Dagenham.
The dash design leaves much to be desired. While it *is* in plastic, the format and layout was very much 20 years old when it came out. To be honest, GM’s dash design was as outdated, as seen in Corvette, but the contemporary E30 BMW interior was leagues ahead in style, and is the template even today.
if this is “the template”, it explains why I find no pleasing aesthetics in today’s vehicles. Aside from that, adjusting half the crap on this dash by feel would be an exercise in futility.
I didn’t say I *liked* the template present today. By the amount of bile I’ve spilled on this site and elsewhere regarding the `console’ in modern cars, I think everyone here knew that by now. 🙂 But it is the template nonetheless. Ford and GM never developed a new dash design after the seventies. Now they just copy BMWs (as does everyone else). That’s a big reason I like 50s-Early 60s cars.
I totally misinterpreted your post (sorry!) It’s hard to hide my “love” for BMWs sometimes…
Some looked better than others. My ’84 was was like this except all gray, a big improvement in my eyes from the black and woodgrain in my ’80. Too bad it had a Fairmont steering wheel instead the the cool spoked one my ’80 had. While the “template” may still be old, I think overall it holds up OK.
From realperformancemustangs.com
Give me that 84-86 GT dash layout over the eurotrash black plastic Bavarian taxi interior anyday. That E30 interior used in the example above didn’t come like that either, unless I missed when they used hand stitched Alcantera dashboards consoles and door panels in the 1980s.
Heh heh, you got me. That’s a customised E30 interior. But to be honest, it was never a taxicab in Bavaria or elsewhere, because its too small! The rear legroom on this thing is nonexistent, and thats in the four-door sedan version. The `German taxi’ jokes are restricted to Mercedes-Benz, or should be. 😉
That three spoke steering wheel is awesome! I guess you’re SOL if you wanted that wheel and cruise control on the same car though. A nearly identical wheel was offered on the F-series trucks & E series van in the seventies.
One feature I really miss is the “separate” gauges. We all know just about all the older cars have a one-piece instrument cluster behind the bezel but I always thought “individual” gauges looked so much better than the generic layouts most new cars seem to have.
Keeping them clean is more difficult but they look so much “cooler”. Sorry for the Chevy infiltration but the 1st-gen S10 is another cool cluster, quite similar to the pictured Mustang Cluster.
Now you forced me to go out and try to find a picture of that wheel, lol, because I couldn’t remember the details. This one isn’t quite right, but it’s close. I think the emblem in the middle was different on mine, black instead of white maybe, but for the life of me I can no longer picture it in my head. I do remember it as being quite thick compared to most cars from that time period.
In a kind of reverse CC effect, I stopped next to one of these at a stoplight last evening and thought about it. I am seeing more and more of these out and about on nice days.
I reflected on the roads not taken. When I bought my 85 GTI, I thought long and hard about an 85 Mustang GT. I vividly recall the sound and feel of that 5.0 HO and the 5 speed stick. The car reminded me of 60s iron I had driven, and made me absolutely giddy while test driving it. But I was a newly minted lawyer, and in a (brief) period where I was impressed with the high-class euro stuff. The Mustang, although pure pleasure, seemed sort of low-rent, and I went with the practical version of euro-snobbery.
Frankly, I have spent the rest of my life since wondering if I made the right choice. I enjoyed the GTI, it was an experience out of my mainstream. Its multiple maintenance and repair issues prevented me from bonding with it for the long haul. But I have never owned a Ford HO V8/stick car. I think I need to do something about this at some point.
Could’ve got an E30. Very nice, for an 80s car, even with a four cyl. The six overheats (at least in these parts), but the four is good.
The E30 318i was about $6,000 more than an 85 GT or GTI. That’s a lot of 1985 dollars!
Well, if the Mustang seemed `low-rent’, some serious cash would have been appropriate. People buy overpriced cars for a reason, and cost-consciousness isn’t one of them.
When I first met my wife in 1988 she was driving a ’83 Mercury Capri RS bubble back. I kid that the “5.0” sealed the deal. 😉
I always wished that car was a Mustang GT and not a Capri. Actually, being a Capri RS wasn’t the problem with that car—it was that hideous rear hatch. Yecch.
I always liked these cars.
When I was shopping, I also checked out the Capri. I had the same problem with the rear hatch, then there was the dimwitted salesman who kept insisting that the Mercury engine was superior to the Ford engine in the Mustang. The fog was too dense to penetrate, and I left without a test drive. That decision is NOT one that I have second-guessed.
Some Fox-stang fans have either added a Capri bubble hatch to a Mustang, or did a Capri to Mustang conversion.
Seen some modded out 5.0 Capris tearing up the dragstrip at National Mustang Racing meet. A long way from the ‘sexy European’ 70’s compact.
Mexico’s Mustangs had Capri bodies and Bubble backs with Mustang front fascia for a while.
I know its strange to you, but I kinda like the Capri glass bubble/hatch. Gives it a kind of chic look.
I forgot about the Capri– I hated the bubble-back but really really REALLY liked the non-bubble-back variation. They had really sharp taillights, and a pretty mean hood scoop. Which year Fox Capris had the “normal” rear hatch? Was there a GT-equivalent performance package available on these?
Anyone? Anyone?
Per Wikipedia (which we know is never wrong…) the bubbleback was introduced for the ’83 MY, so ’79-’82 had the Mustang-style hatchback.
I believe the Capri RS was analogous to the Mustang GT, so for ’82-’86 would have had the same 5.0 as the Mustang.
Capri had the GS and RS (briefly the RS Turbo) up to mid 1985 after mid 85 it was just Capri 5.0.
The Bubble hatch is a love it or hate it feature for certain. It was designed as an Aero aid for Trans-Am racing.
Great article, I love these cars. I also had two of these in college during the 90s, an ’80 with the 2.3 4 speed and an ’84 GT with the “H.O.” 5.0 and 5 speed. And importantly for those that remember, the standard sized wheels rather than the metric 3-spokes in the above cars which were hard to find tires for. The 2.3 was about as gutless as you could get but it was a decent handling car. And in bright red with louvers, tinted windows, and chrome wheels it looked much faster than it was. My ’84 was a stealthy charcoal, which complemented the understated look of that year. you couldn’t even hardly see the GT badges, which was fine with me. I had a radar dectector back in those days. The red ’80 would get clocked by just about every cop that saw it, not nearly so much with the ’84.
I agree that the 83/84 didn’t look as good as the ’82, it was a nice sleeper look if you liked that sort of thing. That dang flat black stripe down the hood was virtually impossible to keep looking nice. It oxidized badly and there’s not a whole lot you can do about that short of repainting. That GT was fast for it’s day, by my seat of the pants standards it was quite impressive to be able to smoke the tires all the way accross an intersection, top out somewhere north of 130 (estimated – speedo topped out at 85), and never losing a stoplight race to an 80’s Camaro. By today’s standards of course it would be nothing special, if I remember right it was about 175 HP that year. The old 2.3 actually handled better as it was better balanced. In the winter especially, that GT was so bad I got stuck once in two inches of snow at an intersection…it was flat ground I just couldn’t get over the crown of the road…that’s when I decided to buy a winter beater.
Build quality was pretty bad on both, but they were both actually reliable when kept in good tune. A block heater was mandatory in cold weather, like so many carburated cars. And that 4-barrel Holly carb on the GT was kind of finicky even in good weather, but like everything on those cars I touched it was simple and easy to work on, quite a contrast to anything I’ve owned over the past 15 years.
Some day after my kids have taken the last of my hair, I hope to buy another. A late 90’s GT convertable with a 5-speed in red is at the top of my list. Yeah, the bodywork was kinda cheesy and I know the LXs were faster, but growing up in the 80’s that’s the one I dreamed about.
OK, one edit on the “simple an easy to work on” comment. I remember now replacing the heater cores on both of them. On the ’80 which had no AC, that was a matter of removing the glovebox to get to it. Took a few minutes. On the ’84 that did have AC, that required dropping the steering column and then removing the entire dashboard assembly. Yeah, that wasn’t much fun. Time has a tendancy to make you forget the worse details I guess. Overall though, it still wasn’t bad.
You have refreshed my memory about another problem with the 85 GT – that miserable flat black decal that covered most of the hood. I had never seen a matte black decal that weathered well, and I asked the salesman if the car could be ordered without. He looked at me like I had asked the stupidest question in the world, and asked why anyone would possibly want a GT without that cool graphic on the hood. He didn’t seem very interested in checking, and basically said he didn’t think I could get a car without that. At that point, I was really open to the car, but he was not interested in doing much work to make a deal.
You sure yours was a decal? Mine was paint with decal stipes on each side of it. The GT badges were flat decals though. Either way, yeah it didn’t look good for long.
The 85 looked like a flat black decal that covered the entire power bulge section of hood, with the “G T” letters cut out so that they were shiny body paint. I suppose it could have been paint, but I imagined that a decal would be much cheaper and easier in the production process.
These cars were certainly not winter cars, nor were they very suitable in the climate here on the Wet Coast. The live axle would light up in even the most mild showers, making the car snakey and hard to handle.
I have a real soft spot for the Mustang LX Coupe. It had all the go fast goodies the GT had without the boy racer stuff. I have always loved sleepers and the LX sure was one. I test drove a 1988 model, five litre and five speed. By this point I think they had 220 hp and there was loads of torque. The Fox chassis could not, in my opinion, handle the power the motor made. The live axle wasn’t located terribly well and when combined with the nose heaviness, I felt it was not the car for me.
There were loads of these things on the road in Canuckisan back in the day. The were a cheap, fast car. I saw plenty of wrecked examples in junk yards while out looking for taxi parts.
Ah yes, my memory keeps getting jogged. My GT did have the traction-lock (limited slip) rear end, which contrary to its name was as much responsible for the poor winter handling as the balance. It did make burnouts more impressive though.
You’re right, these cars were legendary around here for being almost undriveable on slippery roads. Even the 4 cylinder models with the TRX suspension were a handful on anything but dry, smooth road. A buddy of mine had a late ’80s LX coupe with the 5.0 5 speed combo, and even with studded snow tires it was a squirrelly beast on snow or ice. Even the RCMP decided to get rid of thiers after a winter or 2.
They were a blast to drive on a sunny day though.
The RCMP Mustang 5.0s were gone after only a year. We had the repair contract for all Colwood RCMP vehicles (on which we never made money, btw) and the cars got the bark beat off them. At least half of them were crashed in short order and the rest withdrawn soon after.
They were purchased as “pursuit” vehicles and about this time, public opinion was getting in the way because of all the people getting killed from it. High speed chases never made much sense to me. Just get the plate number and meet the guy at home, which is exactly what they started doing soon after.
With quality tires, designed for wet weather, I never had a problem in the rain with my V8 Stang. When it did snow a big bag of dog food in the back and cable chains and it was unstoppable.
Ahh, Eric, you don’t live the The Wet Coast of Canuckistan.
No, I live in Seattle and I’m not going to see a dry road until March (if I’m lucky and possibly May if I’m not) unless I take a trip to CA. No real difference in the rain patterns of WEsTern WA than a little farther north.
Except that when it is raining in Seattle, it is most surely snowing in Vancouver. We’ve had 60 cm so far today. It is the Great White North, after all.
Yes, sandbags in the back were an absolute necessity in the winter for me. But I still found it terrible. Limited slip works ok for slow takeoffs in a straight line and is horrible for any other icy driving. I never had chains on it, they aren’t allowed for street use in Minnesota. My tires were not the best I admit, they were performance oriented. Snow tires would have helped I suppose, but buying an old Colony Park wagon worked even better.
For what it’s worth, I never had issues in the rain either. But on ice it was a handful, the back always wanting to go sideways at the slightest wheelspin.
If it makes you feel better, the first generation Mustang was rotten in the ice and snow too.
They couldn’t have been as nearly treacherous as my father’s 1973 AMC Gremlin.
An ’88 5.0 LX coupe was THE car to have at my high school in Omaha.
Yep… I graduated in ’89 and THE car to have was the ’87-’89 5.0. Nobody called them Mustangs either, just “Five Point Oh”.
Whoops, I meant to say a late 80s GT convertable would be my choice now, not 90s. Maybe burgandy with the orange pinstripe with black interior would be ok too. That seemed to be the most common color back then.
I actually saw one on Craigslist a couple years ago 200 miles from where I sold it and thought dang, that looks like my old GT other than the hoodscoop. Even looked to have the same Kelly tires. So I emailed the guy and sure enough it was, he had bought it from the guy I sold it to. He put the hoodscoop on which was an option that year, and the windshield sticker, otherwise it’s mostly the same as when I sold it, which was fun to see. Sorry these were the Craigslist photos, I don’t have any others handy.
This picture also reminded me of the sunroof. It didn’t seal very well, but that was OK because there was a large channel all the way around that caught any water and drained it out the back. I thought what a nice design, I could even have it open in the rain without worrying about getting wet much.
I learned later the guy who bought it from me took the back sail panels off to fix a little rust near the corners of them and found the C pillars badly rusted underneath from the inside out due to the sunroof drains. Maybe that wasn’t such a great design after all.
The sunroof drains on those are supposed to run all the way down the quarter panels and you can see the little hoses sticking out if you look up under the car. The Fox Stang I had was equipped with the sunroof and since there was a pine tree next to the driveway it often plugged up those drains and I had to “snake” them more than once.
In my opinion, this car ended the so called ‘Malaise Era’. Ford had dropped the 302 for 1980, as if never to return. But, for ’82, Ford unapologetically promoted performance, and the 302 was gradually improved to the ’86+ EFI, which led to its huge aftermarket.
GM’s F bodies helped too. For 1983 model year, car sales climbed, and 80’s recession ended.
I’ve maintained that this car marked the beginning of the end of the malaise era since Murlie posed that question back on that site that shall not be mentioned. (I even made reference to it in the Integra post) Though I guess for copy write reasons he continually states 83 as the end. However many cars continued in their malaise ways for many more years so neither can be marked as the true end, just the beginning of the end.
I agree completely. The 1983 Thundebird/Cougar also signaled that the “bad old days” were coming to an end.
When Ford advertised this car with the slogan, “The Boss is Back,” even someone like me who had been too young for the original muscle-car era knew that something was changing.
I wasn’t going to post this but then I remembered those straps. The sunroof was large for the time, I think Ford called it a moonroof or something. It would come out completely, then you’d put it in it’s vinyl case and strap it down in back. I’m sure it’s not overly unique, but it’s the only factory sunroof like that I’ve ever personally seen. That hatch with fold down seats actually made this a fairly practical college car.
Ford did call the option moonroof on some model lines. Originally it was the cars with the retractable steel panel and then those with the retractable glass that also had a sliding cover. Not sure what they called them on the early Fox Stangs.
My ’84 Plymouth Turismo had the same set-up, from the factory.
I don’t care what name was on these cars, they were not MUSTANGS according to style. I realize they could be potent little creatures, but the Mustang as I knew it didn’t reappear until the 1994 models. It may be the same car underneath, but the style of those intervening years after the Mustang ll just didn’t cut it.
I suppose what I said is true for all cars that carry legacy names, my beloved Impalas included…
However, in 1993, I drove a Mustang rental in Salt Lake City on a business trip and I was mildly impressed with the ease of handling on certain roads up in Emigration Canyon – that was fun.
Would I have ever owned one? Hard to say, as we were still in “family mode” and Plymouth and Dodge sedans were the rule and for a couple of other reasons, but wifey and I did like the convertible models, but years later when we did buy an old convertible, it was a LeBaron in 1999.
That’s a fair point. They were there own design in a time where retro cues were pretty much non-existant for most old nameplates. The flat black stripe of early fox GTs and the optional accessory louvers were about the only ties to the old and they weren’t really part of the design.
That you consider the II to be a real mustang but not these, well, I again I see your point but I don’t think most fans would agree.
You’re correct about the Mustang ll. No, it wasn’t a “real” Mustang either, but Ford did its best to disguise it to LOOK the part, even if it fooled no one!
As for me, I was and am again a Chevy fan all the way.
I always thought these looked more Mustang than the II did.
Dangit!
I always felt these were more Mustang than the current retro Mustangs! 3 body styles, tons of options, relatively compact and the right shape in a totally clean sheet wrapper.
My definition of a mustang is “where’s the substance” not “where are it’s C scoops and 3 tier taillights?”
A first gen Mustang design cue that did make it onto the 79 to 82 series were the back tail lights, if you look closesly, they are indeed tri bar in design. They remind me of the 69 Mustang rear lamp design…….
The 1982 Mustang GT was a cannon shot across the bow to GM and it’s Camaro and Firebird. I love the look of the 82 GT, taking the best bits of the 1980 Cobra Mustang and toning it all down with a monochrome paint job. The 82’s 2 barrel carb gave way to the 83 Holley four barrel carb. I agree with Tom Klockau here, in that the 83 GT lost a lot of style in losing the front air dam and Cobra scoop. Never understood the meaning of the reversed hood scoop, something Ford did on the 78 King Cobra Mustang. The 1982 Mustang began a great run of interesting cars at Ford, thanks to Donald Peterson, head honcho of Ford and Jack Telnack, head of Ford styling. The ponycar horsepower race was on and in each new model year, the GT recieved true refinement! Ford was truely cutting edge back in those days.
The scoop was there because the hood wouldn’t clear the Air Cleaner housing. It’s a shame that they didn’t make it functional.
So the hood scoop WAS functional then…..(sort of!) 😉
On a Similar Note The 2013 Apes 1970 as opposed to the 2010-2012 that looked like the 1969 model. maybe thats just me.
Strange…the hatchback & convertible bodystyles seemed “very” Mustang for me but I do agree that the coupe is a little bland to be wearing a Mustang badge. I hated these things when I was in high school, mainly the ’87 & newer models… even before I got my first F-body car. It took years before I realized it was a personal hang-up of mine & now I can look at these cars in a more “objective” way.
I will always prefer the Camaros & Firebirds but I did get a wild hair a few years ago & almost bought a triple-white ’93 LX 5.0/5-speed convertible. It was an absolute blast to drive & it felt a lot more nimble than what I was used to. I eventually broke down my Ford wall & bought my then g/f (now wife) a ’96 5-speed GT convertible. I figured it would take care of any Mustang itch I had but it really didn’t. I guess it’s kind of “soft” compared to the Fox cars.
Anyhoo, the feature car is sharp…I like its spoiler, early style taillights & front fascia. I prefer the Fairmont-esque dash design with “separate gauges” despite the fact that the dash pads on these things never held up long.
My favorite fox would have to be a white ’87 to ’89 GT hatch with red leather, red line-in-the-body-side-molding, turbine wheels and 5-speed.
“… they were not MUSTANGS according to style…”
Your entitled to your opinion, but the 79-93 Fox Stangs have a huge following. This 5.0 generation lit up the aftermarket and introduced new modern modifications. If not a success, there’d be no 1994 RWD Mustang. The FWD Probe would have gotten the name!
To be honest, my ’89 Probe GT Turbo was a much better car than my Mustangs ever were, so I don’t think Ford was too out of line with that plan. Better built, better handling, more economical, more reliable, more comfortable, better looking (IMO), and almost as fast in a straight line. Not as much fun, but easier to live with.
Good thing that plan didn’t pan out or we’d probably not have today’s ponycars.
I agree. I’ve never had any love for the Fox Mustangs — yes, I understand the attraction of a modifiable 302 for cheap, cheap, cheap, but the interior struck me as depressing even when I was a kid and all but the most charitable critics agreed that the 5.0 [sic] needed more brakes. Now, if you could have gotten an SVO with the V8 instead of the turbo four, keeping the suspension, interior, and brake upgrades, that might have been a little more interesting.
This car was designed in the mid-1970s, when the closest thing we had to “retro” styling was the personal luxury coupes with long hoods, short decks and formal grilles meant to recall the custom-bodied classics of the 1930s. People were getting tired of that theme – particularly the customers Ford was aiming for with the Fox Mustang.
Clean-sheet styling seemed like a good idea at the time, and customers did love it. The two preceding generations were the fat 1971-73 Mustangs and the 1974-78 Mustang II, so clean styling with a glassy greenhouse and no opera windows or “bloat” was a breath of fresh air in the fall of 1978.
First year sales of this body style were well over 300,000 (and 1979 was still before the advent of really heavy rebates and dumping 35-40 percent of production on rental fleets). The severe recession of 1980-82 really hurt sales, but Mustang sales began to rebound with this particular model year. The design also wore well through the 1980s.
Have to disagree with you there! IMO the last Mustang was built in 1970, from 1971 to 1978 all we had were gussied up Torinos then Pintos. The 79 was a return to what the Mustang was supposed to be, a small car with a big engine. Sure performance was nothing special at first, but by the time I got to be old enough to drive, the 5.0 was putting out over 200hp and had some real potential as well. The interiors got much better too, leading to 1993 which was the best year for Fox bodies.
The 1994 was when they got bloated, heavy, and slow. My best friend’s dad bought a new 94 GT and let us take it for a spin. We were so excited right up to when we dropped the hammer, and then a big “meh”, it just felt sloooow. It took 5 more years to get back to good performance.
“…….the Mustang was supposed to be, a small car with a big engine.”
No it was NOT. It was a Pony Car. It was originally 6 cylinders and small V8s. Not until 67, when the chassis was significantly upgraded/enlarged did they get 390 big blocks. 68 saw the 428CJ. 69 saw the BOSS 429. 71 was the last of the big blocks…….a 429CJ/SCJ.
I didn’t say “what the Mustang came with the first 2 yrs”, I said what it was “supposed to be”. By saying they went for 2 yrs with smaller engines then 5 yrs with bigger ones available,you sort of prove my point.
Besides, big is a relative term, I didnt mean specifically “big block engines”. To me, the 289 in the 65 and 66 was still a powerful engine in a smallish car; sporty, cleanly styled, affordable, which is what a Pony Car is. They sold the 6-cyl for the secretaries, just like the 4-cyl and 6-cyl models of the later years. I do not know if they offered 6-cyls in the 67-70 models though, I could care less, it is fairly obvious from the values today that the V8 models from 65-70 are ones everyone wants, from 71 on value plummets unless you have something really special and limited production, and even then value is relatively low compared to the earlier special and limited production Mustangs.
“I said what it was “supposed to be”.”
And you’d still be wrong. Was the Thunderbird supposed to be a 4 door landau? That’s what evolved, it doesn’t mean it was a goal.
No I didn’t prove your point. Quite the contrary, as the engines got bigger……..sales decreased.
Big engines in 1966 wasn’t a “relative”term, there were 421 Ponchos, 428 Fords, 396 Chevys, 426 Hemis. By saying a 289 is a Big Motor is untrue. The 271 HP 289 K code was Mustang’s biggest available. And they did sell six cylinder Mustangs all the way through until 1973.
That the biggest engine available is more collectible today is common across the market, as convertibles also draw a premium. Does that mean Mustangs are all “supposed” to be V8s and convertibles? As a collector that may be what you look for. It’s the “ideal” Mustang to some. The biggest selling Mustangs have always been the base engines……in the base coupe. That’s the beauty of the Mustang, it appeals to a large range of people with different tastes and budgets. Anybody who derides the basic versions need to understand they ENABLE the performance versions.
I can’t be wrong, this is my opinion, just like your opinion is apparently that a 6-cyl base model Mustang is the best one. When I said “big engine” in my first post, I was NOT talking about BIG BLOCK engines. Am I clear now? Sorry if i didn’t use the correct words for you.
And no, just because the Tbird evolved into a 4-dr doesnt matter either, in the T-bird’s case the best ones were the first ones, and maybe the second gen. This is shown by the current values, same as Mustangs. You would be wrong about convertible Mustangs drawing the biggest premium, that is not correct, the fastbacks have the biggest premiums. Convertibles are nearly as cheap as coupes of any generation Mustang, probably because they were so common.
And I wasn’t DERIDING anything, I like the 65 and 66 Mustangs just as much as the 67-70 Mustangs. I wasn’t even deriding the 6-cyl ones, I realize they sell more and that is what makes the GT possible. Zackman made a comment that he didn’t like the Fox bodies, he preferred the 94+, and I merely made a point that I DID like the Fox bodies, and didn’t like the 94+ because of the reduced performance. I was also pointing out that I didn’t care for the 71-78 models either. You decided to make this about terminology that really had nothing to do with my point at all. All I am doing is repeatedly clarifying that I wasn’t ever talking about big block motors and you repeatedly keep bringing it up as if I was.
I also just noticed that although I thought I was replying to @zackman, apparently that didn’t work, but that was the comment I was “disagreeing” with.
“I can’t be wrong, this is my opinion.”
Yeah, right!
Reread my comment about BBs and convertibles.
“That the biggest engine available is more collectible today is common across the market, AS (emphasis added) convertibles ”
“1) You would be wrong about convertible Mustangs drawing the biggest premium, that is not correct, 2) the fastbacks have the biggest premiums. 3) Convertibles are nearly as cheap as coupes of any generation Mustang, probably because they were so common.”
1) Wrong, I never said that. 2) Depends on the engine/package. 3) ??? in some combination, maybe……but it’s not the norm.
http://www.nadaguides.com/Classic-Cars/1969/Ford/Mustang
69 Mustang conv. 302
TOTAL PRICE $2,954 $17,270 $25,740 $38,720
69 Mustang Coupe 302
TOTAL PRICE $2,740 $6,710 $10,945 $20,900
69 Mustang Fastback 302
TOTAL PRICE $2,848 $15,620 $23,430 $35,420
In this apples to apples 302 comparo you are 100% WRONG.
But I am well aware of other situations. A 428CJ convertible is less than a 428CJ Mach1.
Nor do I think the 6 cylinder Mustang is the best one. Collector values have NOTHING to do with a car’s manufacturing intent. They want to SELL cars……..a lot of them hopefully. AND MAKE MONEY. The manufacturers probably lost money on some the more rare exotic combinations. vice versa they made money on the 6s. The most valuable cars are usually the rarest performance combination (no not green cars with red interiors, or special order low compression export 302s).
A 69 Cougar R code XR-7 convertible was 1 of 96. That is relatively rare. A 69 Cougar XR-7 351 (no 6s or 302s btw) sold many times more than that. That car is more indicative of what Mercury intended. It was a Luxury Pony Car.
So, back to the question……..What is a Mustang? It’s a Pony Car.
What was/is a Pony car?
Pony car is an American class of automobile launched and inspired by the Ford Mustang in 1964.[1][2] The term describes an affordable, compact, highly styled car with a sporty or performance-oriented image.[3][4
It doesn’t need to be a muscle car.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines muscle cars as “any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving.”[2] A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or full-size car designed for four or more passengers. Sold at an affordable price, muscle cars are intended for mainly street use and occasional drag racing.[3
Since 05 the Mustang isn’t so compact or inexpensive as there isn’t a cheap RWD chassis anywhere, anymore. It has become essentially a Muscle car in GT form. And more recently if has even become a genuine sports car in terms of outright handling ability.
I dont care what NADA says, go shop for a 65-70 Mustang, you will see all the fastbacks will cost more than an equivalent convertible, thats what is hot right now and it clearly shows in the market.
And the question was never “what is a Mustang”, as usual you miss the point because you are so concerned with the whole big block engine thing.
It was my opinion that the 71-78 Mustangs were either bloated barges or rebadged Pintos. I liked the 79-93 Fox body Mustangs better than the 94+ models Zackman preferred, and I think the returned to the original intent of a Mustang, REGARDLESS OF ENGINE! Thats it, and my opinion still stands. I am so done with this thread now.
I do like Fox Mustangs (says the guy who owns a final year model Fox Thunderbird) but I’ve always liked the 85-86 and 87-93 the best. I like the nose on those models as it flowed with the shape of the car better. The 86 and up cars with SEFI and gobs of torque are what really made the “5.0” legendary.
BTW I spy an 83-86 Cougar behind the Mustang in the first shot :).
I’m pretty sure there wasn’t a “Powered by Ford” decal plate on the passenger side. I looked up a few online and there were none. One did however have an SS plate! It was the pre-production test car.
It was called a Flip-up Open-Air Roof (no sun OR moon mentioned lol)
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford_%20Mustang/1982_Ford_Mustang/1982%20Ford%20Mustang%20Brochure/1982%20Ford%20Mustang-13.html
The Psychedelic seats were real Recaros. (see link above).
I had a 74 Mustang II Ghia, I still have a soft spot for it. Kind of like the kid (I never had) that’s a little slow, gotta love em even more! But it had more Mustang styling cues than the 79 did. IMHO they were both Mustangs though!
In 1982 a guy I worked with bought a new Mustang GT and I got a new Capri 5.0 HO. Later I had a new 90 Mustang 5.0/5speed LX convertible.
Those SS badges were a source of controversy for a quite while.
Thanks for the link and clarification, that’s the sunroof I had. I don’t remember it being called that. I could swear it was called a moonroof in the manual or on the bag or somewhere, but I guess they either changed the name by ’84 or my memory just ain’t what it used to be. Probably the latter.
Thanks for the info on the dash plate. The car was so immaculate, I thought it had to be original. I’ve corrected the text.
How the heck did I miss that clue?! Wow..
The 82 was one of the few production cars to not have a muffler. The CatCon of the time was so restrictive that Ford was able to meet sound requirements with just a resonator just before the split exhaust tips.
By time I got my 82 someone had already swapped in the engine, exhaust and 8.8 from a 1990 Mustang. Thankfully they kept the Finned rocker covers and dual snorkel air box. The 4 speed coupled with the 3.73 gears made that thing a ball of fun! She had some LONG legs and loved to run too.
I wonder if the Mustang II had been badged a “Capri” or “Probe” or “Turnip” it would not be looked down upon so much now. I’ve never owned or driven one but sat in a bunch of them at junkyards & I thought they seemed like pretty cool little cars. The seats were comfy, they all had tachs & floor shift, & there were a lot of powertrain variations.
I think Ford nailed the timing & market when the II came out although I wished they hadn’t offered a “Mach 1” package in ’74 when the top powerplant was a 2.8V6.
I’d have no problem with a 2.8V6 if it made good power (they do now). But you’re right about Mustang II looking bad due to being in the company of automotive Giants, so to speak, the models before and after it. Considering the original Mustang was six-cylinder secretary bait, this should’ve been no surprise. Of course, after the Camaro blew the lids off performance, the `Pony-Car’ and `Muscle-Car’ sort of converged, and the legend was born.
The 1982 Mustang GT was essentially a slightly improved version of the 1979 Mustang Pace Car without the silly graphics. At MSRP $8308, it was also quite a bit cheaper than the 1979’s price of $9733.
For the era, it was okay, but there were issues. Besides the truly silly turn-signal-stalk horn, there was a ‘big’ drop between the 4-speed’s second and third gears. I once read the 4-speed described as a 5-speed with third gear missing. That was about right.
But by 1985, all those ills were cured, with the horn going to its proper location on the much nicer, padded, 3-spoke steering wheel, as well as a proper 5-speed. Plus, the car got a real 4-bbl carb and dual exhaust. The ’85 was also somewhat noteworthy in that it was the final carburated Mustang, with next year’s GT (in any configuration) all getting EFI.
Actually, the 5 speed arrived in 83 along with the 4bbl Holley carb. The nice padded 3 spoke wheel (and the cooler aircraft looking gauge panel) arrived in 84. The 85 had fake duals, the real dual exhaust arrived in 86.
Did the ’82 GTs have that lame, stupid horn button on the turn signal stalk?
My parents’ ’81 Granada and ’83 Fox-body Marquis had them both and they were universally hated in our family.
Ah, Fox Mustangs!
Of the Fox Mustangs I had a ’79 Pace Car Turbo, ’83 GT, ’84 SVO, ’87 GT, and ’91 GT convertible.
The ’79 has a special place in my heart because it was the first new car I bought (my first two cars were family hand-me-downs). It had the most tossable handling, because of its low weight, and was a blast to drive even if the acceleration wasn’t all that much (only 132 hp from the turbo 2.3). I unloaded it when I got my first management lease car, so didn’t experience an exploding turbo. My only engine problem was vapor lock at the top of Independence Pass in Colorado (12,095 ft). That was the first Mustang fitted with the Recaro seats pictured, right down to the psychedelic fabric). Those were the best seats ever, supportive for my back, nice and firm, with an extendable tray to support my knees. Of course I might not find them so good now, since I’ve put on 25 pounds since then.
The ’83 was my first management lease car, and was even more fun, with 175 hp, although with a few extra pounds on it.
The SVO had the best grip of any of my Mustangs, and had acceleration equal to the ’83. Yeah, the 2.3 turbo was pretty agricultural sounding, but still it was loads of fun.
The ’87 has the distinction of the best power-to-weight ratio of any car I ever had, and that was the car in which I never lost a drag race to any 80’s Camaro.
Finally, there was the ’91 convertible. A little heavier and slower because of higher weight, but OMG was it fun with the top down. I managed to arrange things so I took delivery in May and turned it in on a ’92 car in November, just as the first snow flurries were falling. The summer of ’91 had the distinction that almost every weekend that summer had beautiful weather, and I went for Sunday joyrides on the back roads within a triangle with vertices at Plymouth, Jackson, and Lansing, MI. There were days I blew through almost a tank of gas in one day…
And all of those cars were daily, year-round drivers. I can only recall twice getting really stuck on snowy days. I just had to plan my route and judge things so I never had to stop on an uphill grade.
Thanks for bringing back ,lots of good memories.
Sounds like you had loads of fun.. There seems to be a ton of ’80 TransAm pace cars running around but I’ve never seen a ’79 Mustang Pace Car. How many of those did they make? Two?
I had to laugh at your “only 132 hp” comment though because I just returned home a few minutes ago after spending 2 hours in a 92 hp 2.5L Fiero. Where was I? Why…looking at a ’67 Mustang I spotted on Craigslist of course!
There were about 10,000 Pace Replica Mustangs. If you want rare look for the 79 Indy F-150.
You’ve had all the good ones. I’ve had each year SVO but they were all “put up wet” by time I got them. I was like Purgatory for SVOs at one point.
You don’t turn down a running SVO for under a grand.
I’d give my left hexagonal fastener for a 79 Turbo Pace Car.
I still dream about my 82 GT. I can deal with the twist, cowl shake, and wheel hop. When the T-tops were off.. Ooh. What a ride.
It really never dawned on me Driving my 5 speed Cavalier convertible all those years 89-98, I was content, loved the power convertible top.
But once I Got a Marc Cross Le Baron 1986 Convertible for $450 , That car Was So Much better Than The Cav ever was for Me.
I Felt this even more so about the 89 GT Mustang
Automatic Convertible I drove fem 02-08… it avgd 15 to the 20 im getting in the dodge 2.7 intrepid i rely on. ONLY USE SYNTHETIC OIL IN 2.7 . I Can not stress this enough. Fingers crossed.
now that ac no longer has freon, I miss Conv Top, Esp, Now that it is October.
but i did grow tired of the 5.0 growl, and whatever that rattle was from the passengers side rear end.
i still miss the top up/top down nature of a convertible as my only car. It gives you two Options, like no other non transformable body style can do. I Like both The Coupe Top Up Look, as Well as Top Down .
Just to bring things back to Earth..
The Red car seems to have a silver Horse on a Black background for the hood ornament. The 82 GT Hood ornament had the Horse over a Red, White and Blue background.
Love them or hate them, the 82 GT was the Harbinger of 80s performance.(Coming from a guy that puts Turbo Mopars on a pedestalit should count for something…)
Actually it was black as pictured on the GT models.
It’s amazing how our expectations of speed have changed.
My Dad has an ’89 GT convertible with 225hp. I’ve driven a car like it and was worried that I’d lose my license.
I’ve just read that the 2013 Honda Accord will have 265hp and be 1 second faster 0-60mph than an original Plymouth Road Runner.
How do people keep their feet out of it?
I had a 1980 Mercury Capri RS Turbo, a 1985 Mercury Capri RS 5.0 and a 1986 Mercury Capri Sport Coupe 5.0L. The 1980 and the 1985 were POS’s, sadly. I don’t want to re-hash that whole mess.
The 1986 was the best of the three, virtually trouble-free in the three years I owned it. The funniest part of that, was the car was assembled over the Labor Day 1986 weekend. Everyone knows the old adage about never buying a car built on a Monday, Friday or close to a holiday, right? This one was the exception to the rule. Lucky me!
I sold the car to a guy in Erie, PA when I found out my first daughter was on the way. I needed something practical, so I bought a Dodge Lancer ES Turbo. FWD, four door with hatchback, good fuel mileage and less money than the 5.0…
About 10 years ago I ran across a then 15-year old 1986 Capri Sport Coupe for sale at an iron lot, not unlike the one I owned years before. The car was in pretty good shape, but it was a 15-year old car, meaning it had some issues that would need corrected.
I took it for a test drive, and clearly the engine had held up well. Then a flash back to my 5.0L days, when I stepped on the brakes and remembered how marginal they were when new. Of course, in the intervening years, even cheapo cars come with far more effective front discs and many are four wheel discs now, so trying to stop this flying brick was a hair-graying experience. I brought the car back but never made an offer on it.
Like Tom Wolfe said, you can’t go home again…
These are nearly non-existent in Australia. There were a couple raced in the early days of Group A touring cars before the Sierra RS Cosworth and RS500 took over, but it is only in the last few years that they have become eligible as a classic import and most people import much older cars.
Have a black 82 3-dr, 5.0 , t-top 8cyl, mechanically overhaulded in 2011. Been in barn 15 yr. 98000 original miles, one owner. If you happen to know anyone who is looking for one. Need some interior work, (sun damaged frnt seats and dashboard). Original, no rust. Has not been adverised for sale yet.
Ever sell it or was there a change of heart?
Mercury Capri Black Magic
i have an 82 gt and I love it !!! i put a 351 with high compression and it´s fuking fast,i have another one with a 5.0 and twin turbo and it gives me 260km on the highway, is not that bad for an old stng.Even a man in a mercedes amg was impress when i keep with it´s modern performance car Love it !!! is a nice old car sorry for my english i live in other country..