Everybody in my family of origin wears glasses. When I was a young kid, I had thought that getting specs was a rite of passage into the world of grownups. From the time of my grand entrance into this world, even my older brother had worn glasses. I had thought that he was cool, so getting glasses would also make me cool. I waited patiently for the trip to the family optometrist that would result in this, thus making me appear older and smarter.
A funny thing happened on the way to that goal, however, when year after year, the report would come back that my vision was astonishingly perfect. Was it the almost ascetic restriction of television viewing imposed by my parents, or their insistence that I not sit too close to the TV during Saturday morning cartoons that had preserved my eyes? Probably not, because these same limitations were put on all of the Dennis brothers, and in time, my younger brother would also need glasses.
My 1:18-scale die cast of a 1979 Ford Mustang Ghia 5.0L three-door. I’d love the real thing.
Of course, life in elementary school and exposure to my peers who wore glasses and were regularly burdened with the tasks of keeping them clean and in good condition (read: unbroken) helped to gradually change my earlier outlook. In my quest for individuality, I had also come to view the lack of my need for corrective lenses as one thing that set me apart within my family. This became clearer especially during the year my family spent upcountry in Liberia when my older brother, a teenager at the time, watched one of the lenses in his only pair of glasses drop from a bridge into the surging Mowi River. That may have been the point at which any of my uninformed pining for glasses had ceased with finality.
My former 1988 Ford Mustang LX 2.3L, sporting “contacts”.
Fast-forwarding to the early-Aughts, I had moved from Tampa, Florida, to Chicago for a life-altering work promotion, and I had needed to get a new drivers’ license. My old cubicle from the twentieth floor of a majestic downtown skyscraper had afforded me beautiful views of Tampa Bay, and it had been easy to take small visual breaks throughout the day by focusing on some point in the far distance after staring at my monitor for extended periods of time. My first desk in Chicago, by contrast, was squarely in the middle of a fluorescent-lit room with only a handful of windows at either end. Compared with Tampa’s year-round sunniness, my first fall and winter back in the Midwest seemed shrouded in lingering darkness. “I did this for my career,” I kept telling myself, though my excitement at moving to this great city remained mostly undiminished.
A side effect of all of this darkness and lack of long-distance viewing opportunities during the day was that upon my first trip to my new optometrist in the Loop, this newly-minted Chicago resident now needed corrective lenses. “Are you sure? Can I take that test again?”, I asked, as the doctor gave me a firm, friendly, knowing look. “We have a wide selection of frames to choose from, and I’m positive you’ll find something that suits you.” Unacceptable. I was in my late 20s, had just moved to this great city, and wanted to put my best foot forward as I sought to make new friends and hopefully start dating again with newfound authenticity in my personal life. This move had afforded me a blank slate, and I had meant to make the most of it. There was only one viable solution: I would go straight to contact lenses, at any cost.
The Thompson Center. Thursday, May 5, 2022.
If you want some comedy this Tuesday morning, imagine me in the grubby, nasty men’s room on the lower floor of the Thompson Center, near the Secretary of State office, spending about fifteen minutes trying to put in those contacts before taking the vision test for my new license. My eyes were so red by the time I got back into the queue (I had failed the first vision test without them) that it might have looked to some that either I had been weeping or that I was now stoned out of my mind. Putting in those contacts got easier and easier over time, though, and before I knew it, I was an old pro. The only issues with them were when I’d get home drunk from the bar or club and had forgotten to remove them before passing out. Peeling off day-old contacts was not fun, regardless of when my morning Advil had finally kicked in.
A strange thing happened, though, a few years after I had switched eye doctors when my old one had left that firm: my eyes had somehow corrected themselves and I no longer needed any help to see. To this day, I still don’t need glasses, and while my eyesight has deteriorated as I approach the half-century mark, I’ve still got probably a few years left before I’ll need glasses, so my doctor says. Which is fine. I feel like I’ll be ready for that when it happens. All of this reminds me, though, of when the regular, third-generation Mustang had gotten “contacts” in the form of composite headlamps with its ’87 restyle. I was reminded of this when I came across our featured car in my neighborhood about a month ago.
I have come to really appreciate early examples of the Fox-platform Mustang from an aesthetic standpoint. I am really in love with the ’79, and its European-inspired, restrained, almost clinical approach to clean, sporty design. Aside from the clunky window frames and resulting clutter in the greenhouse area (why, oh why, Ford, could you not have engineered frameless door glass on these otherwise beautiful cars?), I love the early ones from almost every angle. The clean, red-and-white taillamp clusters with vertical ribs are simple and elegant, the bodysides have just the right amount of curvature to them, and the slope of the hood (a significant and costly change to the originally assigned hard points) gives a more purposeful look to what might be under it. It now also had four eyes, which I will get to shortly.
No one needs to point out that the Mustang had previously had quad lights for a hot second. The thing about the ’69, though, is that the second set of lights, set into the outer edges of the grille, look more like large driving lights instead of another pair of headlights, and they were gone for ’70. The front lights on the ’79 looked unmistakably like what they were. Rectangular sealed-beams were still somewhat on the cutting edge at that time, having been approved for use in the U.S. for ’75. By the mid-’80s, though, rectangular lights were everywhere, and on every kind of car. The original 1979 – ’82 Mustang “face”, with the four lights flanking a rectangular eggcrate grille, had started to look like that of a generic economy compact by the middle of that decade.
The high-tech, high-performance Mustang SVO introduced for ’84 had dual headlamps, but it wasn’t until its flush mounted lenses arrived for 1985.5 that the Fox’s two-light look all came together up front. It was the ’87 refresh, though, that was completely transformative for the garden-variety Mustang: one that not only included flush rear-quarter glass and updated taillamp lenses, but also SVO-esque headlamp / turn-signal clusters. It could be compared to the point at which the Mustang of the ’80s had switched from glasses to contacts. Looking at the ’86 and ’87 side-by-side leaves no doubt in my mind which is the more attractive car. It was like that episode of Gimme A Break where middle sister Julie Kanisky got rid of her glasses in a bid to hotten up her image to try to join a clique that older sister Katie was in. The ’80s.
Nowadays, and where the Fox-platform Mustang is concerned, my favorite editions are on either end of its production continuum. Of the nine model years the Mustang had four eyes, eight of them were during the third-generation models’ run. The best-looking ones, to me, are when that design was in its purest form, at its introduction. How I would love a ’79 5.0L Ghia hatchback like the one my 1:18 die cast example was modeled after, or a latter-day ’92 or ’93 5.0L LX.
Owning an example of the newer one would feel like closing the loop, as the only thing I hadn’t really liked about my old ’88 was its embarrassing lack of power. (At least it had been somewhat fun to drive, with its five-speed manual transmission.) My genuine attraction to the ’79 gives me hope that if and when those inevitable glasses are perched on my face at some point in the not-too-distant future, things will still work out just fine. There are much worse things than being a “four-eyes”.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Monday, November 13, 2023.
Brochure photos were as sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
Third grade school teachers informed my parents that they should have my eyes checked. Squinting and poor test performance indicated either poor eyesight – or worse.
Sitting in the back of our father’s ’53 Packard on the way to the eye doctor my sister, brother, and I held circled fingers to our eyes making childish fun of who of us might need glasses.
It was me, and only me.
In those days (1950s) lenses mostly were made of thick, heavy, coke-bottle-like glass (real glass). They left deep marks on noses, the frames broke easily, and made the wearer feel frailer than before. Catching a base ball brought forth images of the ball hitting my glasses and forcing the shattered glass into my eyes.
To make it worse, the frames were a clear plastic that looked slightly pink-ish against my face.
Over time, technology resulted in thinner, lighter, plastic lens and I formed a truce with them because they were needed, came in many styles, were more comfortable, and … I could see.
Many years later, In 2005 at the age of 61, I had PRK laser surgery performed on both eyes at the same time. (https://www.aao.org/eye-health/treatments/photorefractive-keratectomy-prk).
The first time I left the home without wearing glasses, it felt as if I was not properly dressed; it was like going out without wearing pants. That was 18 years ago. The only glasses I use to this day are reading glasses for night-time / low light / very small print reading. A note from the eye surgeon allowed me to remove the “Corrective Lenses” restriction from my NJ driver’s license.
____________
Now, cars and trucks with plastic front light covers are getting that hazy look and all I can think of is vehicle CATARACTS.
I tried the toothpaste thing, but so far no success. The Tacoma is only 10 years old, but its eyes are starting to have “That Look”. The higher mileage but garage kept ’99 Miata doesn’t seem to have this issue.
____________
For many years my dream car was an early 5.0 LX notch back Mustang like the ones I saw in Florida patrolling I-95 but without the markings. Truth be told, I’d still really like to have one.
As for the headlight cataracts, I can recommend the use of a headlight restoration product over the toothpaste thing (which aside from making your ride smell minty fresh on the outside will do little to remove the haze, IMO).
The one I use is by 3M. It takes a bit of patience, elbow grease and a variable speed drill, but the results are worth it. And if you don’t get it right the first time, you can just do it again (ask me how I know).
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b40069623/
I’ve had good results with Meguiar’s PlastX; It needs reapplying every half year or so but it’s easy to do. Just make sure you start with a clean headlamp.
My solution (after trying the toothpaste thing, and the headlight restoration thing) was to just get new headlight assemblies.
This freshened up the look of my aging 2007 Mustang quite nicely. Thankfully they weren’t that expensive.
Now my 2016 Civic is starting to get “that look”… I may not luck out pricewise on them, so thanks all for the tips on headlight restoration!
I’ve done that too. On my first car with headlight-fading issues, I polished, and polished, and polished one weekend to get rid of the haze. That worked a bit, but then the haze returned after a few months.
On my next two cars that were so afflicted, I just bought new lights. But like everything else now, I bet the cost of replacement lights has skyrocketed, so maybe next time I’ll be going back to polishing.
My son borrowed the Micro-Mesh polishing kit I use on my models. With nine flexible pads in a variety of grits going up to 12000, you can remove the yellow scum and get a nice smooth finish. Bit labour-intensive though, but he loves the result.
Loved reading this. Your mention of actual glass lenses wou have been a real fear for me, and this is without ever having watched “A Christmas Story”. Even the chance of shards in the eyeball? No thank you, I’ll squint. LOL
And yes, the cataracts. As you can see from that old picture of my ’88, it was so afflicted. I have come to appreciate the notch back Foxes even more in present day.
At the time, I thought the 1979 Mustang was Ford’s best styled car of the 1970s. And with the Fairmont, their best chassis. Great advancement in both regards, on the Mustang II. Big fan of the early Fox Mustangs.
I was very partial then, to the notchback version. Found it more sophisticated-looking. Genuinely closer to MB styling, than the silly Granada. I still like them. Didn’t find the cheap-looking woodgrain dash suited the dynamic exteriors. TRX wheels were the best-looking domestic alloys of the era, IMO. Didn’t like the Cobra graphics. Being a young teenager, I did like the Pace Car, and its loud graphics. And their preview to the 1983 Mustang GT hood paint treatment. I liked the 1980 carriage roof version. Though, I preferred the Dodge Mirada, equipped with the faux roof.
With the Fairmont, I consider the 1979 Mustang, Ford’s best domestic effort of the 1970s. Third pick, being the 1975 Econoline.
Never drove the turbo four, but it must have been a disappointment. Too many base versions were sold with whitewall tires, and these forgettable styled-steel wheels. Gave them an unflattering economy car look.
I bought a 79 Cobra fastback new with the 2.3 turbo and yeah, not a powerhouse but when the rpms picked up it performed pretty good. Fuel consumption was awful even if you took it easy on the go pedal. 20 mpg on the highway at 100 kh/ph. Arrrgh!
My car also had the TRX package which made for a slightly harsh ride. But oh my the Mustang could handle.
Somebody in my neighborhood has one of those TRX wheels bolted to the side of their house, used as a spool for the garden hose. They have become almost valueless, because TRX tires have become rare and obscenely expensive. Similar-looking wheels that accept normal modern tires are now available.
That’s awesome and something I would totally have on the side of my house, if I had a house.
Spot-on, on everything. The MB-inspired styling really comes through on the notch back, especially the rear of the greenhouse. I remember reading in my Encyclopedia Of American Cars years ago that the authors assessment was that the early ones looked “vaguely like a BMW” from the rear – that has stuck with me.
Loved the TRX wheels and agree it was a shame they were engineered for so specific a tire. I did see one on the Internet that had reproduction ones, but to normal measurements. I’d pay for those. I also agree that the base styled steel wheels look *so cheap*, like they belong on an Escort. I’d forgive the red 5.0 below, though – that car is beautiful.
Here’s one of those, wheels that look like the early Fox body TRX wheels but accept common 225/50R16 tires – https://lmr.com/item/WK-39067452/mustang-trx-wheel-kit-r390-style-16×7-7993-machined. The ’83 Thunderbirds had a different but also really cool TRX wheel available; not sure if there are conventionally-sized replacements in that style.
I’ve long wondered why tires (worldwide) have widths measured in millimeters but diameter measured in inches. The TRX wheels and tires were metric in both dimensions; tire stores everywhere used to be asked if there’s some way regular inch-diameter tires can be stretched to fit over their TRX wheels. Uh, no they can’t…
> why, oh why, Ford, could you not have engineered frameless door glass on these otherwise beautiful cars?
If you want a Fox Mustang with frameless glass, look for one with the optional “T” roof. These look especially good on the later “contact lens” Mustangs because it mates well with the new larger, flush-mounted rear side glass, although it was only offered for the first few years of them.
I too prefer the looks of the “four-eyes” ‘Stangs over the later ones, partly for their appearance but also because I like how you can easily swap out the headlamps for ones with a better lighting pattern. Although I didn’t like the small variation in headlamps available on US-market cars before 1984 at the time, I’ve come to appreciate sealed beams. Many of the plastic composite headlamps that replaced them from the mid-’80s onward have been horrid, with dim, spotty illumination and lenses that fog up or become yellowed.
I also prefer four-eyed Mustangs for their nicer interiors. The dash in the ’79-86 models drew lots of criticism from the automotive press at the time, for no obvious reason other than that it was the same as the Fairmont’s (though with the full instrumentation option standard). The basic ergonomics and aesthetics were fine. The first few years sported unconvincing fake wood (the similar Mercury Capri from those years had much more realistic woodgrain). About halfway through the four-eyes run the woodgrain was ditched and the nighttime illumination changed to a nice orange-red color (it went back to green for the Japanese-style dash in the ’87-93 cars). I recall the Ghia only being available as a notchback, but maybe I’m confusing it with the earlier Mustang II.
I was the only one in my family that didn’t need glasses when I was a kid – my long-range vision was excellent, although short range was a tad blurry. In the last decade or two my vision has deteriorated to the point I need reading glasses to read small print or anything closer than about 18 inches away. The laptop screen is big enough I can get by without glasses most of the time, but for any length of time reading things on my phone I prefer wearing +1.5’s. My long-range vision, though not what it once was, is adequate without glasses/contacts/lasik.
I knew about the frameless door glass on the t-top models, and have learned only within the past several years that for a while, *notch backs* could get the t-tops! That would be a unicorn.
I actually prefer the ’87+ dash design, and loved it in my ’88. It was plastic, yes, but it looked cool and high-tech in what was otherwise an economy-minded coupe.
You could get a Ghia hatch from ’79 through ’81, after which the GLX took over.
I was surprised that this was a 1992 Mustang. I had somehow thought that by then, this body style had been evolved or replaced by, something else.
I had a car pool buddy who owned an ’87 version of one of these. Nice but very cramped inside is my recollection.
The SN-95 came out for MY ’94. I remember my ’88 having enough room for me and three friends, but all of us were younger and generally thinner then!
I’m also in the 4-eyes camp where the Mustang is concerned. As mentioned above, I liked the original dash layout and design and more traditional interiors of the early Fox bodies. I also always preferred the notchback body style on the Mustang, but I’d be very happy with an early hatchback Capri before the bubble back update.
I have my eyes checked every 3 years or so, but haven’t needed anything other than reading glasses thus far. I’m perfectly happy with this, although I find myself now leaving pairs of +2.0 readers all over the place because I need them to comfortably read my phone, among other things like recipe directions in the kitchen, etc. I like this arrangement because rather than spending a lot on “real” glasses, I can have a little fun ordering different colors and styles from Amazon.
I do the annual eye exam only because of some family history. Now that you mention it, I think my eye doctor mentioned readers. I honestly can’t remember if I lean nearsighted or farsighted. I have no issues driving or seeing signs.
I like the original ’79 dash, but aesthetically, I loved the layout of the dash in my ’88. The thing about the original dash was that it looked very traditional in a body that pointed the way into the ’80s, so there was that bit of disconnect. Nothing truly discordant.
When I first saw the new LX 5.0 for the 1987 model year, it felt to me like things were getting back on track in the automotive world after much malaise. It was like a throwback to the 1960s. I bought a new ’89 LX 5.0 notchback 5-speed manual, and loved it.
Yes! I think I’d love the very car you owned and described, though I would miss the utility of the hatchback. I’m not really hauling things anymore, so… yeah!
I’m a two eyes Mustang fan. A friend bought a 1989 LX 5.0 hatchback brand new, much like the lead photo. It was wonderful to drive, although terrifying in the snow.
At 56 I need readers to see up close, but my distance is still pretty good. I first needed glasses at 40, so had long given up on trying to be cool by that point. Not that I ever was 🙂
I am able to get into my “cool” state of mind only so often. LOL. I know who I am, and I like who I am, idiosyncrasies and all. I appreciate the looks of the ’87+ models even more now that they’re not everywhere anymore. They’re starting to really cost a lot.
I didn’t even realize it was Tuesday until I saw another post by Joseph Dennis, and about one of my favorite cars. And wow, I never would have thought of the contact lens analogy but now I’ll never unsee it. I started wearing glasses in 5th grade, probably a year or two late. It wasn’t long before my vision was about 20/400 and misplacing or breaking glasses was a serious problem. I tried contacts on and off but never felt comfortable. A few years ago I had cataract surgery and in the process, my distance vision was corrected which was life changing after over 50 years. I now need reading glasses for close work, which is a downside especially when working on cars or up-close plumbing or electrical projects, as my range of vision is limited so I need different magnifications depending on how close the work is. Still, drugstore readers are cheap, and inexpensive bifocal safety glasses (“cheaters”) from the hardware store make for excellent outdoor eye protection, clear or tinted.
As to the Fox Mustang, like so many of us it was an eye-opener (see what I did there?) when it replaced the Mustang II. I even test drove a used Turbo which was not a bad drive by the standards of 1980. In 1986, I test drove one of the early HO 5.0 LX’es and in 1999, I came THIS close to buying a used 5.0 LX convertible. Although my experience with contacts in my own eyes wasn’t positive, count me as a fan of the two-eyed Fox cars, but make them SVO or LX, no over-clad GT please. Thanks again Joseph, and the early commenters, for fine morning reading.
Thank you so much, Dman! To your point about finally getting the corrective lenses when that happened for you, I remember that once I got used to the contacts, how crisp and clear everything had looked. It was like a whole different world.
As for the latter-day GT, I’m all for the purity of the LX design, but I think I’ll still also always love the overwrought GT as it was such a cool car from a formative period of my life. I’ve been sitting on pictures of a pristine ’92 or so GT for a couple of years now and still haven’t found the correct angle from which to present it. I’m sure I will.
I was visiting chicago last weekend and thought I was going to have my Joseph Dennis moment when I spotted a parked 85ish firebird. But I was moving along in an Uber so maybe next time.
That Uber did get me to Pequod’s so all was not lost!
Pequod’s is / was my jam! I haven’t been there in a few years. I really hope you enjoyed your visit, even if you didn’t get your Firebird shots!
I love the way you can weave personal and automotive stories together, Joseph. The results of your creativity are always interesting to read and this was no exception. i do favor the later front end treatment and flush side glass on these Mustangs and agree with the commenter above about the T-Top version looking even better. I drove a 1989 5.0 LX once and enjoyed its handiness compared to a similar era F Car.
To add to the vision aids discussion: I had to have plastic lenses inserted in my eyes after being T-boned on my mountainbike and hitting the ground sideways so hard that it disloged my biological lenses. They are fixed focus, but bifocal, so I can still read small print and have good distance vision. Small price to pay for an impact that is not normally survivable….
Thank you so much, Huey. It’s interesting that you bring up the usability – you said “handiness” – of these Mustangs versus the GM F-bodies, and that’s pretty much always what I’ve read. The day-to-day experience of driving these Mustangs ended up being superior to what was a lower, more rakish and sports car-leaning design, aesthetically. I do love a Camaro or Firebird of the ’80s, though, and get to spend time in one when I’m back in Michigan.
And your biking accident is the stuff of nightmares. I’ll add to the chorus of people you know who are glad you made it out of that.
I think Joseph is truly the master here of automotive/human analogy.
I like the Fox-chassis Mustangs, such an improvement from the MII Pinto, but really prefer the ’05 to ’09 retro-looking models that look much like a ’67 but are modern in all other respects.
About the cataracts: have had good luck with 3M’s product just applied with a rag.
Regarding glasses: have worn them for myopia since Grade 6 and hated them, not the best thing later when dating, but I got lucky by meeting my beautiful wife, who didn’t care, at age 18.
My vision eventually deteriorated to 20/150, but then at age 60 it miraculously began to improve, so much so that now in my ’70s it’s 20/30 and I can pass the driver vision test without cheaters, all I need is cheap-o drugstore reading glasses. The eye doc said with age the eyeball can sometimes change shape, and in my case it was for the better! So for once there is something good about aging.
Thank you so much! Your comments about the eyeball changing shape with time are fascinating, and I think I remember having read something like that before. Now I feel like I want to research that more during some downtime on a weekend or on a commute into or out of the city.
About the 2005 – ’09 Mustangs, they have aged the best of all. Their ’67 / ’68 era-inspired styling is still flawless after all this time.
I got glasses in 7th grade – right at the point where kids like myself are probably most self-conscious. And I remember when my father came home that evening, he remarked “You look so… smart.” I was crushed because I didn’t want to look smart, I wanted to look cool, and Dad’s words were a shattering reminder that squarish gold-framed glasses certainly didn’t do the trick. Oh well.
I wore glasses until my late 20s, when got contacts. I too had a terrible time putting those things on my eyes for the first few months – I remember many times of starting a day with red eyes as a result. Eventually I got the hang of it. I still wear contacts now, but more often than not I wear glasses because they’re less fuss. And I don’t care about pretending to be cool any longer.
Regarding these Mustangs, and other cars that switched from the quad sealed beams to flush-mounted lights, I often prefer the look of the clunklier sealed-beams. I know the flush-mounted lights are said to complement modern designs better, but sometimes quad headlights just provide more visual interest. Maybe that’s just my bias as a North American who grew up in the 1980s, but this is one of those designs where I prefer the old-style headlights recessed in their own little caves.
Oh, and I love your die-cast Ghia model too!
Seventh grade / middle school age is such an intense time in terms of wanting and trying to fit in and be cool. That was my experience, at least. There’s acne and everything else to deal with, let alone glasses. I think there are some kids who would actually want to appear smarter (versus cooler) at that age, but I wouldn’t have been one of them. Like you said, though – nowadays, I care much less about looking cool than maybe even only ten or fifteen years ago.
There are some vehicles that just look better with sealed beams. In addition to these Mustangs, I think the redesigned ’88 Chevrolet & GMC C/K pickups looked better with those smaller, sealed-beam headlamps than with the composites that followed. Same with the fourth-generation Camaro.
My red Mustang Ghia model is one of my favorite purchases of the year. I paid more for it than normally would have, but one would be surprise just how few, good-quality third-generation Mustang die cast models are out there.
Actually, I thought those small headlights on the late ’80s Chevy/GMC pickups looked a bit awkward. Given the size of both the truck, and the truck’s frontal area, I’m not sure why they used such small headlights. Continuing the optometry analogies, those trucks seemed like a big guy wearing tiny European-styled glasses… something just seemed a bit off to me.
Teased mercilessly in elementary school and even more so in junior high school, I did plenty of squinting to avoid getting glasses, but somehow knew I needed them. I did not need to give anyone more ammo with which to tease me. I played it smart and sat closer to the board, and all the other ways to avoid being called “four eyes” – Segue in a moment…
I finally realized that this was dumb and went to get glasses at 24, and was amazed at what I could now see. Turns out I have astigmatism, and was blown away the first time I put the glasses on. I looked across the street at a brick building and couldn’t believe my eyes! I could see all the alternating vertical mortar lines, when prior to this, I could only see the horizontal mortar lines.
I had my own “Four Eyed Fox” at the time… actually it was my second one. The first was a ’79 Ford Fairmont Futura, which I had recently traded for a slightly used 1983 (this was in 1984) Aero Bird. By the time I got my ’88 T-Birds, both of those cars were sporting “contacts”.
As to the Four-Eyed vs Two-Eyed Mustang debate, this is a tough call for me. My favorite four-eyed isn’t even a Fox… it’s the aforementioned ’69 from the essay. That ’86 pictured in this essay is a favorite as far as the Fox GT(s) go, as is that Indy Pace Car.
As to my own retro ‘stang, it’s a toss up. I like my two-eyed ‘stang. I like the GT’s four-eyed look, but the one I liked best from 2005 thru 2009 was the V6 Pony Package, which, while two-eyed, had a really cool looking grille with inset fog lights, just like a ’67 GT. That grille even had the same “corral” around the pony emblem.
Edit: I tried contacts in my late thirties/early forties and hated them. I’m happily back to glasses now for the duration.
I will join with you in saying that once I got those contacts lenses, and everything became actually clear, it was mindblowing for me. I had headaches for a while, given that I just wasn’t used to seeing all of that detail, but it felt like an entirely different visual experience. The only thing I didn’t love was when a pesky eyelash or piece of dirt would get stuck under the lens, which was torture before I could fix it.
I did also love the V6 Pony Package (I didn’t know that was what it was called) with that extra pair of driving lights. That was and is such a perfect look. That was all retro done right, and I know you know this by your CC handle and pictures of your cars that you’ve shared.
I was always short-sighted, but nobody did anything about it until I was in sixth grade. I always sat in the front row (no competition for those seats!) so I guess it wasn’t really obvious.
“Why didn’t you tell us you couldn’t see?” my father asked.
“How was I to know what I wasn’t seeing?” I responded. “If I can’t see it, how do I know what I’m missing?” Gotcha. You only have the one set of eyes, so you don’t have anything to compare it to. Parents and teachers need to be observant,
The teacher made fitting in easy. She explained to the kids that I was going to come back to school with glasses, and they weren’t to say anything nasty about it. I came back, and everyone avoided discussing the elephant in the room. Not even a compliment. Nothing. LIke they weren’t there. Enter the class bully. “If anyone teases you for wearing glasses, just let me know and I’ll bash ’em up for you.” Gold. Everybody overheard him. Nobody ever did. They just became a part of me.
And now I realized how much more there was to be seen.
Just last week my grandson got his first glasses. Black and orange frames, rather industrial-looking, makes him look even cheekier! My first pair were what was described as a tortoiseshell colour, kind of greeny brown with the part under the lenses in clear plastic, so as not to make a barrier when you looked down. The lenses, small in surface area compared to today, were glass, and heavy! Like the optical quality glass had more lead in the mix, or something. Today’s plastic lenses and wire frames seem incredibly light.
Tomorrow I visit the eye surgeon for a cataract checkup. He’s talking about putting corrective lenses inside my eyes whan he takes the cataracts out. Not that I’d be free of glasses, but I wouldn’t need such strong ones. There’s that.
I liked the ’79 Mustang when it came out, but the Fox body seemed to hang around forever, and the later curvaceous front ends didn’t always seem to fit with the aggressive angularity of the rest of the body. Though the quad-rectangular look was dated, like my first pair of glasses would have looked in ’79, the facelift didn’t wear well. I think they got it right with the one you found.
I don’t have this one, but here’s a ’79.
Thank goodness for the “good” bullies of the world! Seriously. I had sort of made friends with one in elementary school, and it was an alliance that was well-made. He was actually a cool person. He and I later reconnected on social media (before he ducked back out again) and we understood more of each other’s story. Good on your friend for keeping the others in line.
I’m glad your grandson has you and your experience with glasses to relate to, and I also hope all goes well with your surgeon.
I also agree with your thought that the original, more angular frontal styling, like in your great model above, was more in keeping with the original angular style of the first cars. I did love the ’87 restyle, though, and thought the aero look was great, with a few minor things (the aforementioned door frames).
One of my very favorite cars was a 1992 red Mustang 5.0 LX hatch. It had all the great practicality of the Fairmont interior, but in a sexy bod. That hatch was perfect for my trail bike and the car was quite a babe magnet. Loved it. I hated giving it up and still kind of pine for another, but that’s so mid-life crisis for me, I won’t pull the trigger on that. I will have to keep living through my high-school mini-me, my son, instead.
I really think he needs one!
I think he does, too! Especially one with the Pony wheels – still a great, five-spoke design.
Hi Joseph!
I too prefer the beginning and the end of the foxbody Mustangs.The last ones were far better cars (imo) but I liked the eggcrate grille and square headlights a little more.
Sometimes I still imagine mixing and matching parts, like a ’79 hatchback with the “turbo scoop” hood combined with the flush rear side glass from the ’87-up. Maybe the later smooth taillights as well. ’86 “phone dial” wheels or TRX rims. Maybe those Mustang parts on a ’79-ish Capri body. Maybe keep the Capri taillights after all…Maybe my perfect one would be ugly to most, but I love the Matador coupe so what do I know?
I really like the idea of building the perfect beast from the many different years and iterations of Fox pony. I’ve always loved the boxed fenders of the Capri, but didn’t necessarily love the bubble-glass from ’83+. I also like the 1979 – ’82 Capri taillamps.
I also love the Matador coupe, and we do not have to apologize for, defend, or explain this. 🙂
Me either on the bubble glass.😀
Thanks for the feature Joseph.
Brings back memories of my wonderful 79 Cobra fastback. Years later I enjoyed an 80 Ghia with carriage roof, an 81 Ghia white vinyl over yellow and an 84 Mustang L. All nice cars in their own way.
Thanks, Garry. I think I remember you posting a picture of your ’81 Ghia. That was a sharp car.
After not having driven an 8 cylinder car for several decades, this past summer I drove my brother’s 2006 GT convertible that he recently got as his 60th birthday “reward”. My god the power and sound was intoxicating, especially with the top down..
Also, I worked at Sears Auto when those TRX wheels came out. A customer coming in for a new set of tires was always in for a rude awakening regarding price and options,
Those TRX wheels, man. So beautiful, and yet… In a link in a comment above, I saw that a set of new, TRX-style rims would cost something like $800, versus thousands of dollars for a set of new tires. There wouldn’t be any question as to what I would opt for, even on a factory-stock Fox that had originally come with the TRX package.