(first posted 12/7/2016) Retro styling, so beloved in the early 2000s, lives on in the pony car segment. The bulging fenders and swooping rooflines of the newest Mustang and Camaro and the slavish homage that is the Challenger show the Big 3 aren’t taking any chances with the designs of their sporty offerings. Their styling plays like a Greatest Hits compilation, even if underneath the sheetmetal is all manner of modern technology like magnetorheological shocks and cylinder deactivation. But let’s cast our minds back to a time where Ford was far more willing to subvert the design orthodoxy in the segment they effectively created, when they launched the clean-sheet 1979 Mustang.
Its predecessor, the 1974-78 Mustang II, had represented a dramatic change itself. Drastically downsized and riding on a platform derived from the subcompact Pinto, the Mustang II attempted to appease Mustang enthusiasts by employing classic design cues like the scalloped sides and segmented taillights. Initially a tremendous success on account of the 1974 OPEC oil crisis, sales slid considerably during the car’s run. Given the Mustang II’s declining sales, Ford didn’t want to do another rehash of the same design.
Ford had also realized they had milked about all they could from the venerable Falcon platform, although it had enjoyed another burst of life in the popular Granada compact. Development had started in 1973 on a new platform with the codename ‘Fox’. Although initially conceptualized as a global platform, the Fox platform would eventually see life as a North American market linchpin with limited export sales. Despite this, Ford engineers and executives insisted the platform employ a European design ethos. Most interestingly, the platform was designed with the Mustang as the highest priority.
Despite the Mustang’s prioritization, the Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr debuted the platform in 1978. There was a great deal of commonality between the family-oriented Fairmont and the Mustang, with both using the same suspension set-up: McPherson struts at the front and a four-link system with coil springs, trailing arms and a live axle at the rear. The Mustang’s wheelbase was trimmed by 5 inches from the Fairmont, although the new model was still 4 inches longer than the Mustang II.
Although the new Mustang overall had a larger footprint than its predecessor, Ford successfully shaved 200 pounds of curb weight while simultaneously increasing interior room by 20%. The base model weighed just over 2500 pounds, and these weight savings were accomplished without any extensive modifications of the engines. The Mustang was also rebadged as the Mercury Capri, available only as a hatchback and replacing the previous European-sourced model.
The entire engine range was carried over for 1979, including the Lima 2.3 OHC four-cylinder (88 hp), Cologne 2.8 OHV V6 (109 hp; a $273 option) and Windsor 4.9/302 cubic-inch 2-bbl V8 (140 hp; a $514 option). Transmission options were a four-speed manual and a three-speed automatic.
There was something fresh on the engine front, however: a turbocharged version of the Lima 2.3 with 132 hp at 5500 rpm and 142 ft-lbs at 3500 rpm. This was the most expensive engine option, with Ford charging $542 for the privilege, but the turbo was said to offer four-cylinder fuel economy with V8 performance. Car & Driver tested both and found the V8 sprinted to 60 mph faster: 8.5 seconds versus 9.1 with the turbo, although the turbo was found to be blissfully free of lag if not noise. Other reviews contradict this impression, however.
Other than the presence of both notchback and hatchback body styles, the ’79 Mustang shared little, design-wise, with its predecessor. By allowing designers a clean sheet approach, there was no ham-fisted attempt at making the new Mustang look like any that had come before it. Despite being only 4.6 inches longer in total, the new Mustang was blessed with drastically improved proportions as 4.3 of those inches were in the wheelbase. It no longer looked stubby or comical, a complaint often levelled at the Mustang II notchback. Perhaps this was the result of the instruction to the designers, working under the stewardship of design director Jack Telnack, who were requested to style the notchback first.
The new design banished the sins of the Mustang II. Designers used urethane to integrate the bumpers much more harmoniously with the body, the front bumper blending seamlessly with the sharply angled eggcrate grille. A lower beltline and taller greenhouse improved visibility. The sides were devoid of extraneous and messy feature lines, while a gently curved backlight prevented the notchback from looking too anonymously angular.
The hatchback was just as elegant. Both looked athletic enough to be Mustangs without looking out of place on a European street. The ’79 was also the most aerodynamic Ford yet, with a drag coefficient of 0.44 for the hatchback and 0.46 for the notchback. The designers had been given a wide berth and they had created a successful and attractive design.
The only clumsy design elements were the louver treatment on the C-pillar, which resembled the same treatment on the Mercury Zephyr, and the awkwardly applied optional vinyl roof. A vinyl roof rarely enhances a design but it was especially bad on the notchback Mustang, sitting discordantly with the subtly angled trunk lid and backlight and ending abruptly.
As with Mustangs prior, the 1979 could be specified in myriad different ways with various luxury and performance options available. This included a striking Cobra option, complete with colorful hood graphic and pinstriping, as well as a luxury Ghia trim. There was even an available carriage roof to make the notchback resemble a convertible, a body style that was still some years away (t-tops arrived first in 1981). All Mustangs came standard with full instrumentation and bucket seats, as would be expected from any coupe with European aspirations, but fake wood trim was also standard fitment.
If your tastes turned more towards performance than luxury, you would have been pleased to find three different suspension options on the options sheet: base, handling and TRX. The base suspension came with a front anti-roll bar. The handling suspension option added radial tyres, stiffer springs and shocks, and a rear anti-roll bar. The most expensive option, the TRX, was designed around the Michelin TRX tires and included a front anti-roll bar, a bigger one out back, and special spring and shock rates. Added to the options list in 1980 as well were Recaro bucket seats.
Consumers were impressed. Mustang sales surged, with 369,936 sold in 1979. This was a whopping 92% increase from 1978 and fell just shy of the Mustang II’s exemplary debut year sales. Critics were also impressed with the improved design, inside and out. Many waxed lyrical about the TRX suspension option and the effect it had on Mustang handling, an increasingly valued attribute in a time of wide gear ratios and tall axles. Although dynamically acceptable with the standard and handling suspensions, Mustangs with the TRX suspension were the best-handling Mustangs yet.
In 1979, it looked like Ford was really turning a corner, ridding their lineup of overstuffed, oversized, poorly-packaged cars and replacing them with trim, clean, new models like the Fairmont, Fiesta and Mustang. Then 1980 arrived and the next phase of the Fox platform was introduced: the downsized Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar. They landed with a thud, their baroque styling elements ill at ease with their trimmer dimensions. Perhaps those project leads should have followed the Mustang team’s example.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t all sunshine and roses for the Mustang either in 1980. The Cologne V6 was axed from the lineup before the 1980 model year due to demand in Europe, replaced with the venerable but stodgy 3.3 inline six. Laughably, this old engine produced 3 fewer horses than the Lima four, albeit with more torque. It was a shame to see the V6 go, as it had acceptable performance and fuel economy as well as superior handling to the V8, owing to superior weight distribution on account of its 80-pound lighter motor.
Then, a second oil crisis and government-imposed fuel economy requirements led to the retiring of the 302 V8. In its place was a smaller-bore version, displacing 255 cubic inches (4.2 liters) with 10 fewer horses, mated only to an automatic transmission. The turbocharged four was then retired in 1982, a victim of unexpectedly slow sales and disappointing reliability.
The ’79 Mustang had opened a new book but halfway through the first chapter it had encountered obstacles, including weaker engines and a fierce rival in the shape of the new Camaro and Firebird. But the Mustang had always staved off extinction and kept on ticking, and the performance would return with the 1982 GT hatchback. This new performance flagship featured the 302 2-bbl V8 (or “5.0”) with 157 hp and an available Borg-Warner T-5 five-speed manual. The turbocharged four would also return, in a prelude to the cult classic SVO. Although sales had tapered off significantly from 1979’s tally, down to a disappointing 130,418 units for 1982, the next chapter in the long Fox Mustang story would once again start off on a promising note. Instead of a dramatically overhauled design, the next chapter would see the triumphant return of performance.
The Fox Mustang had an exceedingly long run but even by the end of its run in the 1990s, it didn’t look like an embarrassing relic. Perhaps some of the credit for that accomplishment can be given to Jack Telnack’s fresh, new design direction. Could the Mustang ever have a clean break like this again?
Featured Mustangs photographed in Mexico City and Santiago de Querétaro
Related Reading:
Curbside Capsule: 1980 Mercury Capri RS – The Fox Mustang’s Alter Ego
In Motion Classic: 1986 Mercury Capri 5.0L – The Other 5.0
Car Show Classic: 1984 Mercury Capri RS Turbo – Ford Had Turbo Motors To Spare!
Curbside Classic: 1983 Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta – The Gold-Trimmed Camaro With An Italian Name
“the slavish homage that is the Challenger”
why reinvent the wheel
True that! Although if there would have been a Charger modified into a 2 door and the proportions looked right, it would have been just as successful without the ‘retro’ theme.
That was a great read. Interesting that the notchback was the basis – smart thinking, you can make almost any (two door) car better looking with a fastback, so make sure the notchback isn’t an afterthought.
Louvre solution reminds me of the C107 MB
I agree on the louvers, and I always assumed that was intentional. (Ironically, the C107 was dropped around the time the Fox Mustang debuted.)
Ford seemed to have a habit of that, ten years later the MN12 Thunderbird came out with a very clear e24 influence, and as it happened that was the BMW’s final year.
The C107 louver was “functional”
The Mustang “louver” was strictly cosmetic. Just blind impressions molded into the plastic.
By 87, you could get the base LX with the 5.0 package and for less than 10,000 grand you had a car that could just about keep up with a 350 IROC Camaro and just flat blow away a 5.0 Camaro. For the time, it was the best (affordable) performance package available, except it did fall a bit short in braking and handling measured by absolute numbers. But real world with average joe’s, it was real close. I was in my early 20’s then and the whole Fox Body experience is inexplicably a part of my world. 87 and 88 were best, because Ford slightly dialed back the spark advance for 89 and forged pistons went away in 91. It was truly a great time to be a Ford guy. Oh how I remember those days, even 30 years later. Just reading this is getting me all excited and bringing back many warm and happy memories. I don’t think in price to performance ratio, we’ve had it as good since. Only quibble I have is with the 2.8 V6. It was consistently slower than the 2.3 in every test I’ve seen and a expensive option to boot because according to most, but not all sources, it was also only available with automatic, as was the 3.3 in the first year. It wasn’t that good a balanced choice as it’s made out to be. And it was a pain to adjust the valves since so much crap had to be removed to get to them in the first place. Othe r than this, which is of course my own personal opinion shared by some but not all, excellent article.
Those “5.0” Mustangs really were a great value at the time. In the mid-80s my uncle was driving an Audi 5000, and he helped his daughter buy a 5.0 Mustang LX notchback (in that maroon color that was ubiquitous on Mustangs in those days). He loved his Audi, but he told me he wished he had bought the Mustang for himself. Sure, it was low-tech and unsophisticated compared to a German sports sedan, but it was probably half the price, and it was a hoot to drive.
That’s the strength of these cars. Audi 5000s are all but extinct for the exact polar opposite reason Fox Mustangs still survive in solid numbers: high initial sales, a dedicated following, abundance of parts, and theyre easy to work on. You can build em however you want and just like the 1st gen mustangs that were first cars for lucky H.S. kids, these are often some teenagers’s project. And its the perfect platform to shape the current generation into gearheads.
*preach*
That, and it certainly did not help that the Audi had a notoriously fragile chassis, even for the times. Some time ago I was reading a historical look back on the importance of the C3, and it was recounted that a lot of the initial test mules would buckle and warp under their own weight!
Wow, I would’ve never guessed that. Audi was known as a rallye racing icon…cant win with a floppy chassis.
I’ll concur about adjusting the valves on the 2.8 V6. What a pain. At that time I knew someone that had bought a ’79 from one of the major rental agencies. I serviced it once; the valves had to be adjusted hot. By the time you got all the stuff blocking the valve covers removed you had to run the car again just to re-heat the valves for proper clearance measurement. That car didn’t hold up well, and they sold it before too long.
“Oh how I remember those days, even 30 years later.”
It sure doesn’t seem like 30 years ago.
Peak Mustang?
No it does not.
Boy did that bring back memories. Dad had a ’79 Mustang Ghia V8 notch with the TRX package. The magazines were giving the Turbo so much ink you hardly knew the V8 was available but we felt that would be the hot ticket and custom ordered one from the factory. There was no “5.0” monicker in ’79 that came later.
I got to pick the options out of the Ford Order Guide, a white paperbound book that you could send away for. We chose Vaquero as the color, a metallic reddish brown, and it came with orange pinstripes. We would have ordered Black but oddly enough that only came with green pinstripes on the Ghia. We tried to order the “sport tuned” exhaust but that kept getting delayed and finally we gave up on that option.
For the first time ever, I preferred the notchback over the fastback on a Mustang. Could never get over that mal-proportioned quarter-window on the 3-door. The notchback had some of the most perfect proportions to ever come out of Detroit – it really did look like “young” Mercedes SLC.
The performance was very impressive for 1979, so much so that I felt the malaise era was over. It was the first car we ever owned with a serpentine fan belt. The Mustang had tall gearing and light weight which helped it average 16-17mpg. It was a tad nose heavy but not bad. What was bad was the soft compound in the TRX tires. The fronts were toast after 10,000 miles.
Thanks for the excellent write up William.
Calibrick: the rags at the time also featured the Mercedes SLC in the new Mustang styling studies as the inspiration for it. Jack Telnak, IIRC, was head of Ford styling in Europe for many years.
Ford marketed the Fox Mustang in Europe; I know because I saw an ad in Der Spiegel declaring “Der Neue Mustang.”
AutoCar mag tested the Turbo version and found it to be as fast or slow as a 2ltr Pinto engined Capri! . Around 83 came 3.3 cyl with standard RHD.
*0s 5.0 GT are sort after on the import market and I prefer them to the current EuroStang. 10 in my small town last count. I think they are driven by would be Aston Martin drivers who are loving the fact they have save them selves £100K for the same experience.
Ford probably didn’t change the engines to less pollution-sensitive European tune. Anyone know otherwise?
At least in the U.K., they did not.
My ’79 Mustangs are all original belgium export models (two L4/2.3L notchbacks and a V6/Auto Ghia hatchback with a build sheet), and they don’t have catalytic converters. Both my L4 base models have a factory header as well. They all have an AIR pump and charcoal canister. On the gas tank pipe, there’s a big “EXPORT” sticker, so they may have a few differences here as well. There are other changes, not related to emissions : larger 10″ rear drum brakes, the same as the 71-73 Mustangs, and 200kph speedometer.
I’ve also parted out a very rusty ’79 Firebird Esprit V6, Belgium export model as well, it didn’t have a catalytic converter or air pump. It had the amber turn signal tail lights and a specific wiring harness.
Belgium seems to be the only country with “official” export US models around here, with factory changes.
After reading lots of test’s back in the day, that 2.0 Cologne was just a hell of a motor. I have a 1971 Motor Trend and the 2.0 Capri was only a second slower to 60 than a Mercedes 350 SL with the V8. It also was faster than the Opel 1.9 and the Toyota Celica by a large margin. It was just a damn good motor until US emissions strangled it. I drove a 73 Pinto wagon with one and it was horribly slow by then. But the 70 and 71 versions rocked.
Ford had a 2.0 liter Pinto inline-4 and a 2.0 liter Cologne V6.
I had 66% of the Cologne in the 3 SAAB V4s I owned. Reliable, economical and easy to work on. You could bypass SAAB parts markups by going to Ford industrial supply (I seem to recall the V4 was sold in the US as the power for industrial central vacuum cleaner systems) or the getting things like the Pinto carb rebuild kits (you had to cut off a tab on the main gasket, that was it.
As it was the V6 was a straight bolt in project, even the clutch bolt pattern on the flywheel was the same. I saw an Ice Racer Sonett with the V6. The owner said the only difficulty was figuring out how to mount the radiator in the rear as there was to much engine (and weight) out front.
It was. I remember the roll out in the states: 1972 Capri 2600 first, then 1974 Capri and Mustang II 2800, then 1976 Capri II 2800. I think the Pinto and others got in ’77?
The Capris with V6 were really nice cars, fast and got great reviews. On the Mustang II the V6 struggled with the heavier weight and high fitment A/T. Still it sounded great until the valves got all loose and had a decent redline.
My best friend drove his mom’s 1980 Capri 200 CI inline-6 a lot and I was often a passenger. I hated that thing, no personality at all. It bugged me to know it had a 1bbl carb. Article says the Lima was 1bbl but I believe that was always a 2bbl on the Fox Mustang.
Pinto got it from 75-79. Wasn’t popular because of the high price and it really wasn’t any faster than the 2.3, at least in the tests I saw.
Here’s a Dutch 1979 Mustang ad.
On the left we see racing driver Rob Slotemaker, he test drove the new Mustang. Sadly, killed when he crashed his Chevrolet Camaro during a race, in September 1979.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Slotemaker
It’s a shame that Ford had been trying to make money in Brazil with near 0 investment at that time, if they had taken its market sharing more serious, they would bring this Mustang to replace Maverick or made the ’78 Corcel over that platform instead of handling the ancient one from Renault over and over again.
Problem was at this time, Ford was not far behind Chrysler in the bankruptcy sweepstakes. If it had not been for the mounds of cash Ford Europe was sending home and for milking cash everywhere else to sustain NAAO, Ford risked going belly up too.
Exactly right. Ford’s profit-per-unit had been steadily declining since 1975, by 1979 Ford’s American operations were losing money (and even their European operations were being propped up by massive tax breaks from the UK), and their 1980 and 1981 losses were very nearly the largest ever reported by a corporation in American history to that point.
http://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/26/archives/profits-fall-95-at-gm-65-at-ford-car-makers-cite-sluggish-volume.html?_r=0
“Although Ford’s overall earnings were higher per share than G.M.’s, Ford still lost nearly $300 million, or $2.50 a share, from its sagging domestic operations. The company’s profitablity in this sector has been severely eroded by G.M.’s growing share of the domestic market.
Much of Ford’s overseas earnnings, moreover, was due to a special tax break from its operations in Britain.”
How nice of the UK to subsidize American biz! Reciprocation for Lend-Lease, perhaps?
The US already made a fortune off lend lease as we assumed ownership of some territories. The UK continued to pay back lend/lease payments until sometime late 90s/early 2Ks.
Given the state of the UK economy and auto biz in the 1970s, I’m not surprised they threw tax breaks at Ford just to have some modicum of stability. Other contemporary articles I’ve read suggest that Ford was making money in Germany and perhaps other parts of Europe, as well, but it’s definitely a hodge-podge of money that kept Ford going through the late ’70s and into the ’80s.
It was surprising how European influenced the 79 Mustang was. TRX tires and Recaro seats in the performance models, while in 79 the Trans Am was still offering a Pontiac 400 and a 4sp that would break 7 seconds to 60. The past and the future in the same year.
The lackluster Lima, now down to a 1 barrel carb, and still only 4sp was not enough at the low end. 5 speed, small ohc front drive offerings had arrived from VW and Honda and were perhaps a better choice for a sharply styled economical commuter car.
Similarly the 4.2 V8 Mustang was pretty laughable compared to the still strong selling Camaro and Trans Am for performance fans. The Mustang people must not have expected them to still be around since they seem to be more aiming at the Monza.
I agree with William that the 2.8 V6 was hard to replace. This was the one place where the fox Mustang and Mustang II had their biggest advantage. The 60 degree design was just a smoother experience than big fours or 90 degree V6s in competitors. Toyota was able to pull off a big price increase when they added a similar engine to their Celica to create the Supra. A special Mustang V6 might have done the same.
The sales drop off after 79 looks a lot like the GM X body sales decline. The X body was saved by quality improvement and the more traditional American style bodies of the A body cars in 82.
Lucky for Mustang, a similar injection of Americana saved it. The new for 82 F bodies were overweight and so the initial engine choices seemed lackluster. By then the Ford Windsor 302 was no longer an economy engine choice in big cars but with a little tuning could come alive in the lite Mustang. Salvation!
Maybe the USA was not ready for world cars in the 80s.
The issue with the 2.8, production-wise, was that Ford of Europe had decided to phase out the English Ford Essex V-engine family used in British versions of the Cortina, Granada, and Capri, which looked to be harder to clean up for early EEC emissions standards than the Köln family. I imagine the finance people weren’t sad about further consolidating what had been an exceptionally convoluted European engine lineup — the Essex and Köln engines had very little commonality. However, that meant the German V-6 had to go into a lot more cars than it had previously, so there were fewer available for North America.
The 255 V-8 was obviously a CAFE-driven stopgap, so it doesn’t seem worth reading anything more into it than that. Ford was in a different position than Chevrolet vis-à-vis CAFE, and I don’t think they would have bothered with the 255 at all otherwise.
The Supra never offered a V-6; all generations used inline sixes of several different engine families.
I see the Ford 255 as the equivalent of the Chevy 267, which was only produced for three years (’79-’81) and found its way into the Camaro along with availability in the B-bodies and the Malibu/Monte/El Camino.
Yup. Of course, you could still order the more powerful engines in the Camaro during that period, but Chevrolet was selling more cars and had a bigger fleet over which to compute its CAFE figures.
The 255 and 267 make some sense in sedans where you may just be seeking smoother operation than the 90 degree V6 down the food chain.
As the top engine in a Mustang it is pathetic. It is away of saying you offer a V8 without offering anything that one buys a V8 in a pony car for. The same sin as the 262 V8 in the 75 Monza. Probably for the same reason as the Monza. Kidding themselves that they are really about sophisticated European handling and the V8 is so yesterday. If it were any good, it would attract the wrong crowd. So let’s make sure it isn’t.
The continued success of the F body, the fade out of the Monza, and the inclusion of crossfire injection on the 305 on the 82 F body brought the 302 back and for once the engineers were allowed to get to work on it. Saving the Mustang.
Definitely not the right engines for anything with sporting pretensions, to be sure. The 267 had a bit of a leg up it its initial 1979 format, with 125 HP and 215 lb-ft, both a bit more stout than the 255 which had yet to appear and a useful step up from the 3.8 V6. However it managed to lose power over its production run, sinking to 115/190 by ’81, right in line with the 255.
The 262 was a different animal entirely–max of 110 HP/190tq, and it seems to have only existed as a stopgap before the 305 was introduced, whereas the 267 was created as a more economical option during the 305 era.
I really think reading this much into it is misguided. Had Ford really intended the 255 as the top engine option for the Fox Mustang and Capri in some fit of misguided strategy, they would have launched with it, which they did not. Substituting the 255 — and only for two years — was pretty clearly a result of somebody doing the math for their 1980 CAFE totals, realizing they were going to be short, and saying, “S**t, guys, we have to figure something out or we’re going to be fined, and the corporation can’t afford that.” Given the decline in Ford’s total passenger car sales, that was likely a correct assessment.
There’s this assumption that car companies can sit around and wait to see how something does before making changes for the next year, but it really doesn’t work that way except for tiny, tiny stuff. Engineering work on the stronger 1982 302 would have had to begin, at the latest, around the time the 1980 cars went on sale, especially because it was going to require some certification updates to make it legal.
Since Chevrolet did the same thing with the 267 at the same time for the same reason — although they didn’t have to use the 267 quite so extensively because they were selling a LOT more cars over which to balance their CAFE numbers — I think that’s really all it is.
I think you may be underestimating the degree to which V8s were yesterday’s news in 1982. If you remember the first write-ups on the 82 F body. C/D went on and on how the 305 was just a placeholder until DOHC versions of the 2.8 V6 were ready. Very wrong. I doubt the 157hp 302 took any time at all to put together. To certify, yes. I also seriously doubt Ford knew in 1982 that the 302 would be up to 210hp by 1985.
I’ve always joked the only reason for the 255 was they were going to have a bunch of leftover pistons when the 250 was discontinued and had to do something with ’em.
Speaking of “world cars”, here’s your new Buick Regal.
I drive the smaller Verano. In America, it is thankfully dying instead of the indignity of moving production from Michigan to China.
On the Regal, I was trying to imagine your Opel with a chrome waterfall grill and a slipspere. On this generation, they may edit that down to just a different emblem. Can’t have too much differentiation, we are the same now. It has been decreed.
A classmate’s dad had one in the early eighties. Something different for a change, between all the usual suspects from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Japan and Russia.
In fairness, Ford did quickly realize they’d taken the wrong tack with the Thunderbird, and the ’83 was nothing if not in the Mustang’s image.
The output of the early turbo four is a very confusing issue. The 132 hp figure cited in some of the early previews was actually an SAE gross rating. There were several different gross figures quoted, up to 150 hp. A couple of testers, including Motor Trend and Road & Track, cited a figure of 127 hp net, but that was described as an estimate. All the 1979–81 Mustang brochures I’ve seen have a notable lack of ANY power figures. Likewise Mercury Capri brochures, which otherwise have a fairly extensive number of technical specs (including spring rates!).
The 1983 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe had 145 hp SAE net, but that was with EEC-IV electronic injection and significantly more boost (10 psi vs. only about 6 psi), albeit lower compression (8.0 vs. 9.0). I have a hard time seeing the earlier carbureted engine being almost as powerful on less boost.
A 1979 Motor test of a British export Mustang lists output with the carbureted turbo as 118 hp SAE net, which sounds more realistic given the output of the normally aspirated carbureted Lima. That would make the turbo approximately as powerful as the 255 V-8, but with somewhat less torque, which sounds about right.
Curious about the lack of published numbers.Yes, I’d agree on that 118hp number; it really couldn’t have been any more than that. It was a rather modest affair.
EcoBoost 2.3, by comparison, is over 2.5× that at 310hp.
The astonishing thing was and is just how easily the old Lima four can make stupid power. Joe Morgan’s “Poisonous Pinto” ran what is basically a stock-rebuilt Turbo Coupe engine with the boost turned up. He ran 10.75 1/4 mile times, more than fifteen years ago! (And the car was even California smog legal!)
http://pintopage.fordpinto.com/Poisonous%20Pinto.htm
It’s pretty weird. I can see the early previews being a little hazy on final output figures — long-lead previews may have been before all the emissions and fuel economy certifications were finished — but it was the same deal with the 1980 models, including the gross figures and estimated net ratings in magazine tests. Ford would not have been able to advertise the gross ratings in California by then, so I guess they just decided to decorously omit them.
In 1980 accompanied my brother to the Ford dealer to see a new Turbo Mustang. The car had the TRX package and was decorated in all the stripes seen in the brochures shown above. Though I wasn’t interested in the car, the salesman kept talking to me and soon I was the one test driving the car. I found the Turbo 4 made a lot of noise but little power. By the time I finished test driving the car, the salesman, with no encouragement from me, had come down $1K off the factory sticker price. Not sure if my brother even drove it. The car was a real paper tiger.
We went back a short time later and test drove a Fiesta. I had a hard time walking away from that one.
I always kind of liked the Mustang II. But when this Mustang debuted, I fell in love. Such a modern package, but the proportions all clearly said Mustang.
My aunt and uncle bought a base Mustang, a hatchback I think, in ’79 or ’80. I was excited by the news — but when I rode in it for the first time I lost my excitement. The body flexed and squeaked over every bump, and the interior appointments were spartan at best. At least it looked good from the outside.
By the time I graduated college in 1989, the Mustang LX 5.0 was one of the cars many of my buddies bought upon graduating with their engineering degrees and attendant jobs. It was a lot of fast car for the money.
^ This. The ones I’ve ridden in felt the same way. And in the mid 80s there were reports of the front seats breaking through the floor pan, and not from rust.
Yup, I remember seeing one on the hoist in high school shop class around 1985, there were huge cracks in the floor around the rear seat mounting points and the owner was welding them up.
My Dad brought a 1980-ish Mustang home for a test during one of his car shopping periods. As I recall it was a black notchback with 2.3l four and four speed. There was some emissions device that slowed the throttle closing, I don’t know if it was just this car but it made driving so unpleasant he didn’t buy it. He wound up buying a Subaru, which was a great driving car..
I agree the proportions clearly said Mustang, at least on the notchback. The one we had did not rattle at all and felt solid – no flex, no creaks. I never drove a hatchback but can imagine that feeling less stiff than the notch considering how light the weight was. To do a hatch right requires more than just different styling, it takes a ton of reinforcement in the rear body to compensate for the missing rear bulkhead. Everything about the hatchback seemed like a rushed job. I wish they would have made a notchback 5.0 GT in ’79.
If it’s true that they designed the Fairmont to be a Mustang first, and then on the Mustang did the notch and then the hatch it would explain a lot about the perfect proportions that were aided greatly by that cool wraparound rear window.
The wraparound rear window was not originally part of the styling plan, and became a last minute addition. The finalized notchback Ford wanted had a regular rear window that didn’t curve. When Ford got one into the wind tunnel, they found that the flat rear window was absolutely killing the aerodynamics they were trying so hard to achieve. Curving the glass solved the drag problem, and was then adopted for the finalized styling.
cjiguy if that’s true it’s an incredible bit of tribal knowledge for us Fox Mustang fans. I always thought that curved glass, which was very expensive, was to make the notch version look more like a Mercedes 450SLC 4-seater. If you compare an SLC to a 450SL 2-seater the SLC doesn’t just add the louvers it also adds the wraparound rear window over the SL.
Maybe it was “convergent development” since Benz was also concerned about aero drag, here with a fixed top. BTW I recall a Cd of .38 for the ’79 ‘Stang.
The hatch had a Cd of .44, the notchback .46. Terrible figures by today’s standards, but at the time, that wasn’t all that bad. The speed in which those figures were improving then was rapid, to say the least. The new 1983 Thunderbird was down to Cd .35.
Ford struggled with the notch on the Mustang II as well, but for different reasons. Remember that weird padded vinyl top appliqué they glued to the ’74 Ghia C-pillar? For the ’75 facelift (who does a facelift in year #2?) they revised the quarter-window shape and that was a big improvement. Turned out to be the only sheetmetal change for the entire five year run of the car.
Going from a Pinto hatch to a Mustang II notch was a real challenge. It was the other way around on the Fox Mustang where going from a Fairmont made it easier to do the notch.
Must have been tempting to drop the notch altogether and put the investment for two bodystyles towards doing just one really nice fastback, like they did on the ’94. Well that wasn’t my favorite ‘Stang but you get the point.
Worked out well. Keeping the notch, which turned out to be beautiful, not only continued that part of Mustang’s DNA but also made doing a convertible in ’83 a lot easier. You can tell that was not in the original plan. Remember those awful exposed trunk hinges?
The smart money was on the LX 5.0. Stock to stock the GT was faster, but you could buy the LX cheaper and upgrade it…the real beauty of that plan is that the LX, even in 5.0 guise was a LOT cheaper to insure than a GT. Part of the reason my BIL insisted on a LX 5.0 before my niece was born. I helped him do some upgrades and even with the automatic it was a VERY fast car for the early 90s.
I too remember the base (or LX) Mustang with the V8 being the hot tip of the day. It must be stressed how very rare it was in the ’80s for the fastest engine to be available as a separate option on a base car, rather than only as part of an expensive sporty trim level with spoilers and air dams and fake Recaro seats (available in grey or black only) and lots of extra money.
I always like the look of these early Foxstangs, very clean compared to what it became by the mid-80s (at least the GTs with their ridiculous faux-aero gimmicks and cheese-grater taillights).
Only flaw was a rear suspension that struggled to contain the axle hop once the power levels approached 200HP, even with the Quadrashock set up.
Im a fan of the 4-eye Stangs over the ‘aero’ ’87-93 variant myself. The cheesegrater tail lites I could handle. Its the goo goo eye composite headlamps and lack of a grille on the GTs (dumb little oval on LXs) that skragged the look for me. Plus, I liked those ‘clunky’ quarter window louvers. Gave the car character, whereas the smoothing out of that section after ’87 made it seem more generic. I sure did like the factory ‘turbine’ wheels used to about 1990 on GTs though.
Ah, my first automotive love…and my first car, which was a 1980 Ghia hatchback in white, very similar to the one in the photos. And 36 years later, I’m still a Mustang owner.
As others have noted, Ford tried to create a Euro-vibe in these Fox-platform Mustangs. My Ghia had caramel-colored vinyl seats with perforated, pebble-grained inserts and winged headrests that tried very hard to look like they came out of a Mercedes. Alas, that’s where the similarity ended, as they were slippery, unsupportive and had no adjustment for the seatback angle. The instrument panel was purely American, and had a look that was not unlike other Fords of the late ’70s; in anticipation of airbags, the horn was activated by pushing in the turn signal stalk (“Just like in them fancy French cars,” in the words of my salesman). And very much unlike Mercedes, I also remember that the steering wheel was almost comically small, with a chintzy vinyl pillow where the horn button should’ve been.
Worst of all, mine was a victim of the Cologne V6 shortage, being equipped with the “venerable but stodgy 3.3 inline six.” It had the power of a four, with the gas mileage of a V8, but it was totally reliable.
Criticisms aside, these were among the best of the breed in their day, and moved the Mustang – and Ford, to some degree – into a rebirth of the performance era.
The early Fox dashboard was fairly plain but straightforward, so I liked it. Main complaint is the small dash [“glove”] compartment compared to the Granada’s.
Great article and pics William. I was very young and impressionable at the time, and one of the earliest 1979 commercials using the riff from Steve Miller’s ‘Swingtown’, was quite effective in its marketing appeal.
Are all these 70’s and 80’s ads talking about 0-50 times artifacts of the 55 MPH speed limit era, i.e. the gov’t didn’t want you referring to extralegal speeds so 0-60 was out? Or was it simply another measure back then?
It was in response to the 55 mph speed limit. Auto makers didn’t want to be seen as encouraging people to exceed it (even though virtually everybody did).
Nice article. I owned a 79 Pace Car Replica. Unlike other firms pace cars, Ford did a bit more than throw stickers on the doors. Ford did a unique (for 1979) front end and rear spoiler arrangement, added the TRX package, Recaros, sunroof, and made 11,000 replicas. The look was aggressive and dramatically different from them rest of the line. It worked so well Ford resurrected the Pace Car package 3 years later for the GT model.
I had a great time with that car. It had a 302/4spd combo. It was totally reliable, lively and drove very nicely.
I owned an 87 Mustang some years later. Despite the refinement of the overhaul in ’86, the 79 was superior in some ways. Overall the 79 was well done.
I had one of these, an ’80 with the 2.3 and 4 speed. It was about as gutless as Mustangs ever got and I drove it with my foot to the floor most of the time. But with the hatch it was reasonably practical for a high school kid and with new paint, chrome wheels, louvers and tinted windows it still looked great at 11 years old….at least by high school standards of the time. It was “Bright Red” which at night under artificial lights looked orange.
I remember those metric TRX wheels, tires were hard to find and expensive by the early 90’s and many people swapped them out. I didn’t realize they also included a special handling package. I had dreams of putting a 302 in that car but then I came to my senses and just bought an ’84 5.0 GT instead. Even with the stiffer suspension and bigger wheels that GT didn’t handle as well, but it was a heck of a lot more fun.
I’ve never liked the notchbacks. I know they are lighter but I still think they look awkward and stodgy compared to the hatches.
In hindsight, gutless cars are probably a good thing for high school lads.
These still have a fresh, clean appearance to them even now. It reminds me I captured a Mustang Turbo of this vintage – complete with TRX wheels – some time ago.
Having spent some passenger time in an ’81 or ’82 Mustang, and later owning an ’89, it was evident to me Ford spent considerable time improving the package during the course of its extended run.
The ’81 or ’82 belonged to my aunt. It was a hatchback with T-tops, the 3.3 liter six, and wire wheel covers. The poor thing always seemed a little confused. It did rattle a lot, especially on the gravel roads it spent considerable time on. However, like all the Fox-bodies I’ve experienced, it was a tenacious thing, as nothing ever broke despite the treatment.
My ’89 coupe was powered by the mighty 2.3 and hooked to an automatic. That 2.3 was surprisingly enthusiastic despite it offering little in the way of anything tangible to backup the enthusiasm. It was always rattle-free and the instrument panel, while dated in relation to contemporary ones, was much more intuitive than some of those same contemporary ones.
While I once classified the ’80 to ’82 Thunderbird as a Ford Fubar, I would nominate the Fox body as a Ford Greatest Hit, with special recognition to the Mustang.
It’s interesting that you mention the improvements in this car as the 1980s progressed.
At a Carlisle All-Ford show two mint, original Mustangs of this generation were parked side-by-side on the show field. One was a 1979 model, while the other was a 1986 model. The improvements in paint quality and panel fit displayed by the 1986 model as compared to the 1979 model were readily apparent.
” two mint, original Mustangs of this generation”
For the model years from 1974 to 1983, finding mint and original cars is getting well nigh impossible.
If I had the room, I’d find and hold onto one unmolested Fox coupe and one original fastback, as historical references. Even two nice cars in the top trim level (Ghia or GLS) would cost about $6,500, and some day they would be very rare ponies (and still worth about $6,500…).
I may be repeating myself, Jason, but I had a 2.3L Mustang the same generation as yours (’88, with a 5-speed manual). I liked that you referenced that your four-banger was “enthusiastic” if underpowered, as that was always my impression of my car.
With the A/C switched off, the 2.3L was more responsive than one would think…but that car was sloooooow. It was super-useful, though, with the hatchback and fold-down rear seats, which came in handy when I was transporting my belongings to and from college in those years.
I always felt the interior of my ’88 seemed very current, and almost European, especially the instrument panel, with the rocker switches on the sides for headlights and hazards. It had a very modern look (yards better than my subsequent ’94 Probe) and was a very nice place to spend time behind the wheel.
I have come to appreciate the aesthetics of the early Fox-body Mustangs. The notchback looks crisp and kind of elegant, and the hatchback actually looks decent without the rear spoiler (the absence of which makes the later cars look terrible). The interior, however, I don’t know…it wasn’t my favorite. I was so glad the car I had purchased was a post-’86 model.
By CC: to William Stopford, thank you for another *great* piece.
Joe, it’s good you commented as I need to clarify my comment…
The interior of my ’89 looks dated in comparison to current cars, not contemporary ones. Big difference.
Plus, there was an upshot to having the 2.3; mine was great on snow due to its more balanced weight distribution.
The downside of the coupe was having a trunk with something like 8.8 cubic feet. It took little to fill it up.
I got rid of mine when it had 95,000 miles; the only problem I had ever had was a bad thermostat and having a piece in the rear axle go bad. The rear end had been fixed, but it was starting to go south again so I traded it for my ’96 Thunderbird.
My gas mileage on the four-banger Mustang was about 24 mpg; the fuel mileage on my 4.6 liter Thunderbird was also about 24 mpg. There was a world of difference in driving the two.
Referring to the 302 as a Windsor drives me nuts as bad as calling the 153 Chevy II engine an Iron Duke. There is only ONE Windsor, the 351W, which debuted in ’69, a full 7 years after production of this engine family had begun. This is the 90 degree V family. And it is funny how the ’79 Mustang 302 V8 had a serpentine belt setup, while the 302 V8 in the ’79 Fairmont had V-belts, with both being Fox bodies.
I also thought Windsor [Ontario] meant only the mainstream 351, but because it shares genes with the 302, it’s no foul since Ford engines have usually been named by their place of original manufacture. At any rate the 351 became scarce by the ’80s thanks to CAFE, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
Chevy enthusiasts seem to get by calling all their different small V8 sizes “SBC.”
The proper name for the 221 and 260 was “Challenger V-8”. 289 and 302 were “Fairlane V-8”
I reallly disliked these when the came out. More of Ford”s crude boxy styling as originated with the Fairmont. But, as the 80s progressed, the details got better, the 5.0 reappeared,, they became popular with my high school / college cohort, and I even considered ownership by 1990. When I see one today, I look at them fondly.
But, my high school / college age kids will consistently tell you these are the ugliest Mustangs ever, and don’t look like Mustangs.
I disliked these as a young man in the late 70s. The lack of any “traditional” Mustang styling put me off.
But today they look clean and purposeful. Quite unlike their modern namesake with it’s “Suddenly It’s 1971” looks and bloat.
I’d commit crimes to get that kind of visibility in a car today.
“The lack of any “traditional” Mustang styling put me off.”
I can definitely see that. However when the 94 ‘blobstang’ debuted and they had a few very weak tie ins to the ’64 model with the tagline ‘It is what it was’….truly laughable. Id rather a clean left turn than a sad attempt to tie a weirdo looking faddish bodystyle with a classic.
I don’t dislike the 94 generation but I agree, there was definitely a campaign to sell those as this big heritage redesign and really it’s styling wasn’t much more than an organic 87-93 Fox, with C shaped side sculpting added in. Even the three segment taillights weren’t truly right since they were horizontal rather than vertical until the minor 96 refresh(which helped that design immensely IMO). The reality is the Probe got dumped as a Mustang successor not just because people were clamoring for a heritage 1965 redux, but that the Foxbody got consistently better in very significant ways between 1982 and 1987, and Ford was about to run it off a cliff again with what would become an also-ran FWD Mazda. What it was what it was was there all along when fans protested that, and it was a light boxy 5.0 H.O. powered hatchback, the SN95 however needed to prove itself to make such a proclamation, and a somewhat neutered 5.0 and 4.6 in the heavier chassis didn’t make it easy.
Wanted one of these when they came out, later got to own a 79 Cobra, red with no hood decal (that was optional). What I love about the early fox body Stangs is the incredible number of interior trim and colour options available. Later owned a 2001 Bullitt, codenamed Fox4 but when you opened the hood every sheetmetal stamping under there is the same as a 79.
I owned a 83 and do own a 97, I don’t care what anyone tells me, it’s the same basic car (Fox) with some plastic surgery.
The one thing I would eliminate as a stylist are the metal frames around the side windows. Frameless glass would make the Mustang look so much lighter.
They did in the t-tops and convertibles. But the frames were more practical (less leaky) and one of several reasons the Mustang was a better daily driver than the Camaro.
Frameless glass. One of my pet automotive peeves along with super sized consoles and fixed rear side glass.
I felt a bit lukewarm about these when they came out, but today I have to admit that the ’79-’82 notchbacks were very attractive cars. Once Ford started messing with the grill they lost me, as I think the original clean black eggcrate treatment was the best look on these.
I had a chance to drive a ’79 Ghia notchback with the 5.0 and auto for about a month back in ’86. (unfortunately it was loaned to me as a temporary substitute for my own totalled ’82 Challenger. It belonged to the buddy who’d rolled my car into a ditch one fateful night.) Due to the circumstances I was not thrilled to be driving that car, and most of that month was spent shopping for my own new car after the insurance settlement came in, but I do remember that is was quick and fun to toss around, although the power steering was a bit vague. As a starving student in those years I was not in love with the gas mileage the carbed V8 delivered, and the car had around 80K on it, which was high mileage for a late ’70’s non-injected car, but it was still pretty well put-together. Today I’d like to own a Fox body notchback, but then again just about every car guy would.
I’d love to see the modern Mustang morph through the design stages of the original. Since it’s at about the equivalent stage now to the 1973-4 Mustangs, I figure maybe they could roll out a Fox body 2.0 around 2022. (unfortunately that would require 4 years of a retro Mustang II, which would probably kill off the model for good).
I bought a new (dealer demo) 1983 LX 5.0 4spd (yes 4 not 5) convertible triple black with the TRX package. To this day it is my favorite car that I have owned. The only drawback was the damn Michelin tires, as I recall those were $105 a pop back then (not cheap on a car that ate rear tires up rapidly). I replaced it in late 84 with a Daytona Turbo 5spd. (the Daytona was a good looking pos that was extremely prone to malady both electrical and mechanical ). I still retain a 97 Mustang GT convertible (white with black and black). With it’s 4.6 and automatic is may be more refined than the 84 but still a fun drive. Fortunately it gets the privilege of living in the garage and only 3k miles a year so it will likely be around for a while. (71k miles on clock currently)
A picture from earlier this year.
Yup, 83 was the last year for the SROD gearbox. Always find it interesting (and most people have forgotten) that if you wanted an automatic you only got the 165 hp CFI 5.0, not the H.O. At least it was rated higher than in the Crown Brick.
I never really thought about it, but planning for the Fox platform would have had to start around 1973 given how long development takes. I think it would make a fascinating book/read to document the Fox platforms development, and the development of all the vehicle models that it spawned…. from 1978 up until 1993.
I’ve always liked the Fox Mustangs, it’s what I grew up seeing on the road all of the time. My favorite would have to be the 1986 GT hatchback with the T-Tops. I like the 4-eye style, and the last couple of years of the 4-eyes had a smoother front end and smoother tail. If I were to buy another Mustang now, that’s what i would be after.
+1 man! Those frumpy ‘pony’ wheels which my BIL loved so much from his LX 5.0 are the only pimple on the look of this car. Slap some of the ’88-’90 ish GT turbine wheels on to that and its hard to imagine any FoxStang looking better.
In my mental plan for my 86 GT T-top mustang, i would do a 5-lug conversion from the later SN-95 Stang and pop on a set of the 17″ Bullitt rims.
If you like the upsized wheel look, that’s a good way to go. Ive seen it done, and on Fox cars, 17s look like 20s on a modern variant. Its all in what ya like. Personally, Id go with 15″ Torq Thrust D’s…7″ up front, 10″ out back. Its a straight line biased car anyway, so why fight it?
Ill say this though, that tomato looking red/orange color Ford was using really pops on certain vehicles. My sister had a ’88 supercab ranger in that color. Crappy, ugly truck but great color!
The problem with that is the Fox was designed with wide axles requiring positive offset wheels to fit inside the fenders, 15″ torque thrusts, as far as I know, are all 0 offset, so they’ll stick outside the fenders like a lowrider on daytons. I wanted old school 15″ slots bad for my Cougar but I ran into the same offset problem early on, and upsizing became the better choice, which allowed for fitment of big 13″ Cobra brakes – stops great in a straight line as well!
Much as I like those turbine wheels, I’m with you’re BIL on the pony wheels. A 5.0 LX notch on them just looks so athletic, and the center caps hide the fact that they’re dorky 4 lugs.
Like Matt said, part of the upsizing to 17″ would allow for better Cobra brakes all around. While the Mustang from that generation was primarily a straight line car, there are many mods that you can do to turn it into a pretty decent car that will actually go around corners…which is what i would enjoy doing.
I never cared for these from the first one to the last. From the outside, it looked like an anonymous anycar, with no hint of it being a Mustang whatsoever. A co worker sold her very nice, low mileage 70 Cougar XR7, and bought a brand new 81 Mustang to replace it. Brown with that brownish orange colored interior and vinyl top. It was a notchback with a 4 cylinder. The first time I rode in it, it squeaked and shuddered. All I could see was the dashboard and interior of my brother in law’s 79 Fairmont, which was even the same colors as this Mustang was. I immediately asked my co worker why on earth she got rid of her Cougar to buy such a piece of junk. These were always my least favorite Mustangs simply because they were nothing more than a Fairmont with cheap plastic bumpers, yet, nowadays, my least favorite Mustangs are the current body design. The mustang styling cues are all there, but way too over exaggerated, and they look like they were actually thrown on a Hyundai Genesis. So in retrospect, the fox body Mustangs don’t look so bad anymore to me.
Great write up William.
I fell in love with this generation of Mustang when they came out and wanted to factory order a fastback with V6 and 4-speed manual. With a few desirable options my dream Mustang would have priced out at around $6,000. By the beginning of 1979 the V6 was not available so a few months later I picked up a turbocharged Cobra with leather seating, no center console, no AC but the TRX suspension ($7,000). Wonderful car around town or on the highway. Handling like I’d never experienced before but fuel consumption was very disappointing even at 100 km/ph (62 mph). Only 20 mpg and the fuel tank was smaller than it should have been (Ford later made them bigger). This meant my cruising range was not so good. I can recall a couple of highway trips where failing to top off meant worrying if I’d make it to a service station in the boonies.
I did some mods on the car which at the time were trendy and I thought were cool. Might do a short piece on that and get your reaction as I’m sure we all did something we thought would make our cars better in one way or another.
A few other Fox body Mustangs came along years later when I was a family man. One of which, an 81 Ghia notchback with vinyl roof, 3.3 six and automatic was my favorite. Should not have sold it but the teenagers cried about a lack of traction in winter driving.
Nice thing about the Fox platform is much more space between the front suspension towers than in the Falcon. Not so nice was the limited suspension travel making it too easy to top out, yet with lightly-boosted rack-and-pinion steering, these were a revelation to drive compared to their ancestors & corporate siblings. I was astounded by these cars.
Great article on a very inportant Mustang that seems to get little attention here. I do commend Ford for taking the route they did with this Mustang; my only qualm is how long the produced it for. Granted, they did make consistent improvements, but by 1993, or even 1988, this Mustang was looking decidedly tired and dated. At the very least, most competitors weren’t much ahead.
Well, yes, it got dated, but remember it was slated to be replaced by what came to be the Probe in 1989, which would have meant just 2 model years of the major refresh that was done in ’87. I feel that still looked pretty contemporary in ’88.
The Probe would have been an even larger “clean break”, and having owned both there is no question the Probe was the better car. But it wasn’t as fun as the Mustang. It was the right decision to keep the Mustang around, and likely the reason there have been no further clean breaks.
Certainly “hooners” would agree; I remember one of my coworkers tearing around the company parking lot in his ‘Stang. Cheap thrills were what the Mustang was all about.
I credit my GT for making me a more capable driver. Lots of practice keeping it under control with the back end broken loose, especially in the winter.
Most people laugh when I tell them that, but it’s true.
I did that by accident with my mother’s 302 Futura on a wet bend, recovering correctly by reflex.
Sometimes Mom chirped the rear tires on our sloped driveway, which embarrassed her. Maybe they should’ve gotten the six instead.
Will, excellent and enjoyable write-up! I was (and still am) a fan of these cars. I was a car-crazy 12-year-old when they came out, and I thought they were a huge breath of fresh air. I think the stylists did an impressive job making the car look “modern” and “Mustang” at the same time. For us Malaise-era kids, the 302 V8 and/or the Turbo were as good as it got, and made the car a “performer” in our eyes. I would actually argue that this original Fox-body Mustang came the closest to the intent of the original Pony Car formula: contemporary (not retro), high-style looks based off of an economy car platform, which could be dressed up or down depending on the buyer’s preference.
One of my Pop’s friends bought a ’79 Ghia fastback with the V8, white over red vinyl. It was a sharp car and he enjoyed it a lot. He replaced it with another Mustang, this time a convertible, when those came out in ’83.
My only beef with these Mustangs is that Ford kept them going too long. Yes, there was a lot of continuous improvement, and they represented a great value, but that shifted the emphasis to “best bang for the buck with an old-school car” rather than “cool, fresh new Mustang” that these ’79-’82 cars represented.
Good read.
I remember in the 80s, the Camaro outsold the Mustang…although Mustang was the vastly superior car.
Pains me to say that, Chevy guy that I am, but the tables had turned from the late 60’s where a 350 Camaro could blow the doors off a 390 Mustang…now the 302 Mustang was making mincemeat out of 305 Camaros. Plus Ford bothered to have Borg-Warner build a superior 5-speed in the T-5 World Class, starting in ’88. GM never responded, sticking with a base-spec T-5 that wouldn’t take the torque of a 350 TPI, that’s why those cars were automatic only. At least the TH700R-4 had been thoroughly improved to match the engine.
And need the rattles and shakes of the F-bodies be mentioned?
If anything, these early Fox bodies gave enthusiasts of that day a “55 Chevy” of their own. They will continue to be popular, as they should be.
The clean sheet is what I admired about these. The original Mustang’s true design breakthrough wasn’t it’s side scalloping or three segment taillights, it was the proportions. The MII overemphasized the styling details but the Pinto derived dimensions were always off. The Fox designers shook off every element of the Mustang II they could to truly reinvent it, and the retro touches were temporary casualties whilst a new more aero/euro identity could be made for itself, but the proportions were classic Mustang. I always admired the Fox design for that, and frankly it’s successors, especially the 05 and newer “retro” ones, despite being revered as “true mustangs” by supposed enthusiasts, remind me more of the Mustang IIs cartoonish trying too hard to be a 1965 with the wrong physique design language. The Fox was original, just as the 65-70s were, I don’t find myself nitpicking the design as I do with the 74-78s and 94-17s because there’s no throwback detail for me to point to and think “that’s wrong”. Only nitpick I can come up with is the framed door glass. Only T-Tops got the frameless doors
On a deeper level the Fairmont roots couldn’t parallel the original’s Falcon roots more. Now those who admire the Mustang as a supercar that should be state of the art purpose built track machine may not appreciate that, but the first gens are laden with compromises of the Falcon’s simple platform and it in no small part contributes to the experience. Even those criticizing the Fairmont heavy dash of the 79s – have you ever sat in a 65? It’s essentially a Falcon dash with a different pad!
On a deeper level the Fairmont roots couldn’t parallel the original’s Falcon roots more.
The Fox Mustang is much closer to the Fairmont than the original Mustang was to the Falcon. As best as I can tell, the Fox Mustang kept the critical cowl and other hard points identical to the Fairmont. I think it’s fair to say that the Fox Mustang is a Fairmont with a shortened rear end, a slightly lower roof, and different exterior sheet metal. But its inner structure is largely/essentially the same otherwise. Which is why sitting behind the wheel of a Fox Mustang feels so much like sitting behind the wheel of a Fairmont. And it explains the relative good space utilization of the Fox Mustang, given its upright seating and other Fairmont aspects. And, yes, the dashboard really is a Fairmont, with some minor changes.
The original Mustang was a completely new structure from stem to stern. The only thing it shared with the Falcon was its suspension, steering and running gear. The basic body proportions were drastically different from the Falcon, with the cowl lower and well set back, as well as the rest of the passenger compartment. Sitting in a Mustang did not all feel like sitting in a Falcon.
Sorry, but the dash in the Falcon was totally different than the Mustang’s, except for a design similarity in the instrument pod. But the whole structure, height, depth and every other aspect was completely different and unique.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not putting down the Fox Mustang for being a 7/8 length Fairmont with some new skin; it functioned quite well. But Ford was under much too great of financial pressure to replicate what it did with the original Mustang, and of course the market for pony cars had drastically shrunk. The Fox Mustang was a very pragmatic solution derived from economic necessity. But it really doesn’t have the classic Mustang proportions, given its more upright stance, high and forward cowl, and other Fairmont body proportions.
You said the Mustang was a “pragmatic solution,” yet Mr. Stopford seems to differ: “The platform was designed with the Mustang as the highest priority.” I’m inclined toward your view; why would Ford prioritize a model for a declining market segment? OTOH, mainstream Fairmont sales would improve their CAFE figures most.
I’m not sure where he got that from. It may be a matter of wording. It may well be that the Fox platform was conceived to support the Mustang too, but in a much more intimate way than the relationship of the original Mustang and Falcon.
If the wording is intended to say that the Fox’s primary design intention was to be a Mustang first and foremost, and a Fairmont secondarily, I would dispute that without evidence to support it.
I assume that what happened was that Ford obviously needed a new compact platform, and it was conceived to support both programs simultaneously. But clearly, the need for the basic body/cowl dimensions to work for the Fairmont was prioritized over a lower/set back cowl for a genuine sporty coupe. The Fox Mustang is decidedly more sedan than the Fairmont is sporty coupe. So the Fairmont’s needs seem to have been prioritized. Not surprising, given the respective volumes anticipated for each.
If the wording is intended to say that the Fox’s primary design intention was to be a Mustang first and foremost, and a Fairmont secondarily, I would dispute that without evidence to support it.
I would agree with that as well. If Ford had intended for the Mustang to be the primary use for the platform, seems that they’d have given it a better rear suspension.
The Four Link/Live Axle was a shortcoming for the entire life of the vehicle (More the Four Link – the gear heads mostly liked the Live Axle for its strength).
From the book Ford Mustang: Forty years of fun
Mustang First
The key thing as Witzenberg notes, is that the Fox development “was tailored around the Mustang’s needs as a sporty, agile, European-style product…” He then quoted Gordon Riggs, planning manager for light and midsize cars, who was put in charge of the overall effort on special assignment: We said, okay, we’re going to have a series of cars off of a platform as yet undefined, and what should that platform be? We decided first-off that it was going to be a sporty platform, because we knew the focal point of it was really Mustang. Anything we did… to help the Mustang would probably benefit any other car we took off it. It was not planned just for the Mustang, but the whole platform was designed to accommodate it.
Later on in the chapter it goes into how the cowl was actually raised from the Fairmont at considerable cost in order to make the front end look lower too. Either way the parallel I draw is the Falcon’s quirks of that platform are engrained in the 65 like the Fairmont is in the 79s. It’s a less impressive effort to be sure, but by the standards of platform differentiation by the late 70s the Mustang was definitely a strong effort.
” Iwould agree with that as well. If Ford had intended for the Mustang to be the primary use for the platform, seems that they’d have given it a better rear suspension.
The Four Link/Live Axle was a shortcoming for the entire life of the vehicle (More the Four Link – the gear heads mostly liked the Live Axle for its strength)”.
As opposed to leaf springs every Mustang prior had? The 4 link didn’t become troublesome until power started to be added after 1982, and this design was essentially a copy/paste of GM’s A-body suspension, there wasn’t really a gold standard live axle suspension from any domestic manufacturer until the third gen F-bodies debuted.
Paul F. your point about the rear suspension doesn’t make much sense to me. Clearly the 2005 – 2014 SN197 Mustang, on a new platform, was intended from the get-go to be a pony car and had a live axle.
On the rear glass it’s somewhat reasonable to assume that wasn’t in the original plan because a big, curved window is both heavy and expensive, an odd choice for the base bodystyle.
But imagine the Mustang notch with simple flat rear glass — it really would look too much like a Fairmont. My bet is that the glass was in there from the beginning.
That said, what a great story it would be if the design and engineering teams, who were no doubt trying to make a handsome car, had to tell the boss “Hey we need to change the rear glass. We have to do it for aerodynamics. Oh by the way the car looks a lot better too, like a Mercedes now.” “OK do it.”
Lots of loose ends (sorry for the pun) for someone to follow up on. cjiguy do you have any proof of the story on the rear glass?
Here you go Calibrick – the original winning notchback proposal. You can clearly see the difference in the rear window at the base:
Fascinating and thank you for posting. it still looks somewhat curved but is clearly different from the final form whereas the rest of the model made it to production.
The final version glass for sure makes the notch look more like a Mercedes but now I think that was maybe not so intentional, because it had the louvers from the beginning. The new glass would make the decklid look shorter and that was probably the primary motivation. If it improved aerodynamics too what a great story. That could maybe be the story too.
Mercedes was trying the make the SLC not look much different than the smaller SL. Ford was starting with the Fairmont and trying to make it look smaller like a Mustang should. Both design teams ended up using the same tricks.
Another example maybe. Datsun sure did a better job than Ford on their fastback version. Hard to do notchback coupes when the lines are blocky.
What I got out of all of this is that the Fox platform was built to support both bread and butter cars as well as the Mustang but that the expectations for the platform were lifted up to be appropriate for the Mustang, as opposed to dumbed down to the Fairmont…at least to a point.
To me, doing so is only logical. The Mustang, as it said is the ‘focal point’ of the variants, and rightly so. That’s the halo car and as a performance icon, lets face it…MUCH more is expected of it, than from a pedestrian level people mover. Which customer would you piss off more: Mortimer J Fuddlemeyer, the retired county clerk who finds out is Fairmont sticks in the corners just a LITTLE better than expected? Or Joe Sportscar on a budget whos flashy new Cobra drives like a soggy mop? A sports coupe that looks good but has no real performance chops available to back up the looks isn’t going to last long.
Which nameplate is still running to this day and has been a perennial sales success as well as undoubtedly bringing in buyers of lesser products who might have gone elsewhere if Ford had nothing to ogle? I’m no Ford fan, but the Fox was done right even if it wasn’t ‘perfection’.
A couple of times I’ve seen a Fox-bodied station wagon (I’m not sure if it was a Fairmont, Granada or LTD) with a Fox-bodied Mustang front-end clip.
It was kind of freaky seeing a mid-sized 4-door “Mustang” station wagon, but the clip seemed to fit perfectly.
They Fairmonts and LTDs with Mustang noses aren’t bolt on interchanges though, because of the Mustang’s raised cowl the Fairmont fenders and hoods are modified to use only the nose. The lines are just close enough that any decent body shop can make a very convincing conversion.
I recall the Fox Mustang actually had a slightly raised cowl compared to the Fairmont. That was done for aerodynamics … It enabled a more sloping hood without changing other hard points. The raised cowl is obvious in profile and inside. In the Mustang there is a bit of extra space (compared to Fairmont) between bottom of the dash and the center console. In higher-end models Ford put a rudimentary pictogram of the car in that space, with LED indicators for open trunk, doors, etc. My first car was a 1985 Mustang GT. The Fox was likely the most space efficient Mustang generation ever. 4 adults could fit in reasonable comfort. Can’t do that with today’s much larger and heavier version.
Actually the dash was in the same place as it was in the Fairmont, as Fairmont could eventually be had with the same console as the Mustang as an option just without the handbrake (1982 brochure has it below, I think that may have been the only year). The cowl is raised from the portion the wiper motor and mechanism mounts inside of – if you look under the hood of any Foxbody note the arced lip separating the cowl section from the firewall, the top portion is what’s different on mustangs, as well as the aprons around the strut towers. The dash mounting structure is on the lower part. The Mustang cowl vents are noticibly more visible from inside than the Fairmont though, and that’s the noticible difference between them
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/ford/82fair/bilder/10.jpg
It never bothered me that my 79 Cobra had window frames. Nor was it ever an issue in the Fox Mustangs I had in later years. Probably an aid in keeping the the door from rattling and certainly helped seal the side glass.
It bothers me more on the 87-93 restyle admittedly since I’m overall a bigger fan of that update. On those the quarter glass was made flush, which effectively made the door glass look smaller. The original 79 design the quarters match perfectly so it’s a non issue aesthetically. Still, to me ponycars really should have frameless glass.
These are really thin on the road now. I can’t remember when I’ve seen an early one like 83 or newer in traffic. Even the next gen ones are getting that way.
My only memory of this series of Mustang was a 5.0 convertible that I test drove back in the 90s. I should have bought it, but the finance division of the MarcKyle64 Corporate Conglomerate said no.
Like the Fairmont the Fox body Mustang was not a durable car in some regions of North America unless it was undercoated, garaged and not drive in winter where it snows. I also don’t think (based on seeing the inner fender apron structure on these cars) the factory applied much paints underneath. Likely because they were going down the assembly line at a rapid rate. And I believe any extra paint or factory undercoating was extra time and expense Ford didn’t want to incur on each Mustang/Capri.
Mom bought a lightly used ’79 notchback in 1981. It wasn’t a Ghia, but strangely, it sure was optioned out to be like one. White with Chamois vinyl roof, Chamois/White interior accent group that included the low back buckets and headrests, stainless rocker panel moldings, wire wheel covers, pop out sunroof. Basically a luxury economy car with the 2.3 and stick. Mom really liked that car (when it ran).
Neither the coupe nor the fastback can be considered very handsome, as both suffer too much from having to share too many hard points with the Fairmont body. The coupe looks better, relatively speaking, but it lacks the genuine sporty-car proportions. It’s a Barracuda all over again – essentially a 2 door Fairmont coupe.
The hatchback is very awkward from the side; the rear side window looks odd, as does the heavy C Pillar. Very compromised.
Having said that, I appreciate the Fox Mustang for its honest,utilitarian, pragmatic self. No pretenses; the ultimate anti-F Body.
While I’ve thought the 1983-86 4 eyed Mustang’s had superior powertrains I’ve preferred the front and tail end designs of the 1979-82 Mustang’s, I also liked the notchback design over the fastback designs as well.
The ’79 was unfortunately available with the 3.3L (200CID) six. I know this because my parents had one. It was bronze with a bronze vinyl top and an orangey/bronze interior.
The car was a total POS. I distinctly remember that the car would stall at idle because the heat riser for the automatic choke had rusted off, causing the choke to close when the engine was warm. My mom would have to two foot it, or put it in neutral to restart the car. We upgraded to an ’89 Grand Am which in retrospect was also a total POS, but seemed like a huge upgrade at the time.
I managed to avoid owning any American car until my grandfather’s untimely demise. He gave me his ’01 Crown Vic, and compared to my ’88 560SEL summer daily driver, it’s a dream.
Random thoughts, there you go.
The 3.3 was a running change made during the 1979 model year. Because of that, you can find ’79s with five engine options:
5.0L V-8
3.3L Straight 6 (200 CID)
2.8L V-6
2.3L four (turbo)
2.3L four (not)
The 3.3’s used in the Fox body also have an updated bell housing mount, which matches the 302 bell housing. An odd change, since Ford only built the straight six for a few more years.
The six also uses a different K-member, which makes V-8 swaps more difficult- Stick to the 2.3 four for a V-8 swap, they share a K-member with the 302.
No. The 2/3 rd V8 bellhousing for the 3.3 didnt start until 1981. The block casting number is B1BE. And it’s still not exactly small block V8. The top of block bolt holes don’t quite match up. The info is on Classic Inlines sight. It does use the low mount starter though.
I prefer the hatchback, but I’m clearly in the minority view on that one. The notch is clean but it just seems a little too formal somehow, or at least in comparison. But it’s a fairly close margin, as opposed to after the ’87 aero refresh, at which point I feel that the hatchback was *much* more attractive.
A young-ish aunt had a ’79 4-cylinder notchback in the mid 80’s, in a very orthopedic color of tan. (I presume she got the car used, as I highly doubt she would have chosen that color). I still remember it had a particular scent to the interior…maybe it was the vinyl seats or the plastics. (With a more than a whiff of cigarette overlaid as she smoked at the time). The car eventually passed on to my cousin as his first car in ’96, by which time it was pretty well beaten down, but still kicking. It also got a cheap-n-cheerful red repaint which almost immediately started wearing badly so that the tan underneath peeked back through. Yet it survived his ownership, and his younger brother’s, before it finally gave up the ghost sometime around 2000. Not a bad run.
I actually go the opposite of that, I think the hatch looked better 79-86 and the coupe looked better 87-93. The louvers looked much better on the hatch roof than they did on the coupe IMO
As noted by Ryan B above, the 1979s also had a straight 6. (I read that there was a V6 shortage, so the former Falcon engine was brought off the bench.) I had a Ghia hatchback; lovely car but slow, slow, slow. Drove a Citation from the company fleet and it felt like a hot rod by comparison.
As I mentioned up top if you took care of these cars they would last. My neighbour’s 93 GT has over 300,000 kms and still looks good. Most of the meterage is highway and his Mustang is never winter driven and always garaged. He knows I’m interested in it. But clearly has no interest in selling.
The yellow Ghia I enjoyed for a few years was sold to the boss’s daughter then later sold to another young man I knew. i bought it back, but it was too much work to restore on my limited budget so off it went to the wrecker’s. Sigh…
Saw a white cobra of this era at work a few years ago with a white leather interior.
The styling evolution of what became the Fox Mustang is actually quite interesting. The book XR7Matt points out above, Mustang; Forty Years of Fun gives a lot of good insight. It explains fairly clearly how the design sketches that the stylists were coming up with were very clean and Euro inspired, but the clays that were being produced were very conservative. It apparently took Jack Telnack, Vice Persident of Ford Europe design from 1973-1976, to come in and inspire change. Apparently there was an edict from Henry the Second himself that strictly forbade slantback front ends, and Gene Bordinat enforced this idea very strictly under his control. While in Europe, Telnack was very persistent with Henry II to reconsider this thought with the 1977 Granada, and after some long deliberation, Henry eventually agreed. This allowed Telnack to instruct the Mustang team to think outside the (literal) box. He was quoted “You guys are putting this stuff in sketches. You must think that way, so why aren’t you doing it in full size? They asked me, are you serious? Does he really want to break out of the boxy mold. I said Yeah, I really do. I had to convince them.”
One of the early sketches Telnack refers to:
Nice story. Didn’t know about Hank’s slantback aversion. The car in this sketch, like some of the early GM 77 B-body sketches, is just fantastic.
Yes, his hate of rearward slanted fronts was very real. This site shows a near production ready Fox notchback with a forward slanting nose, just in case Henry II wasn’t having it…
http://autosofinterest.com/2015/04/28/1979-ford-mustang-proposal/
I read about that proposal but never saw it before! Definitely not aero but I actually kind of like it. I actually see even more R107 influence in that, which also had forward slanting ends
That one reminds me of a misproportioned Fiat 130 coupe.
The sketch above, on the other hand, makes me think of the Bitter SC, but maybe that’s just an artifact of the Ferrari 400 article yesterday…
To elaborate further, quite shockingly, what we know as the Fox today only barely eeked out ahead of a much more conservative proposal. To quote Telnack, “But the car we did had a lot of support from management, and, fortunately, made it thru market research and just squeaked ahead of this very traditional American Mustang being proposed at the same time. And I mean squeaked ahead in terms of general acceptance, overall image.”
This was the conservative Mustang he refers to:
I tried to get my 70 year old dad to drive my newly purchased 87 GT I told him come
on dad. you have driven a fast car. Drive this sucker! He wouldn’t do it
Dad was a good guy. He died ten years ago. Dang he missed out on the chance
to drive a FAST car for once in his life
My Mustang was fun but not on snowy streets!
great read!
the 79-82 is my favorite and most coveted Mustang of all time…
my father had a 1980 Mustang hatchback and as a child, I fell in love with that car and cars in general… I loved the way it looked… the slanted grill, the angled side markers, the c pillar louvers, and the taillights… to me, this is a Mustang, as it was the first model I ever knew in my young life… and today, I’m very fortunate to own not one, but two examples of these Mustangs, just like my late father… my 79 is s 5.0 with the automatic, and my 80 Ghia has the 3.3 straight 6 with the 4-speed SROD, which isn’t neck breaking fast, but it drives well enough and keeps up in traffic well enough… my Mustangs are stock and will remain that way.. there’s always someone suggesting I drop a high performance motor in my cars, but I want to keep my cars original, as these cars, once common place 30 years ago, are just about all gone… everyone has hacked up these early fox Mustangs that original surviving examples are nearly extinct… I’m happy with these cars and I love them the way they are…
They are beauties! Thank you for keeping them stock.
Very nice! It’s *so* rare to see an unmolested hatchback in particular, they seem to be much thinner on the ground than do the notches. Great to see clean, stock examples, and yours look fantastic.
These are beautiful! Thank you for keeping them stock!
Nice cars, would love to know more about them.
Those look great! The turbine wheel covers look better to me than the actual alloys in those years, so rare to see them in unbutchored non racecar state like so many early Fox bodies are. Kudos!
I like the 79-82 most for the same reasons. There’s actually a lot of very subtle throwbacks in the details, the angled side markers = 1970, the eggcrate grill with quad headlights(with the outboards somewhat inset from the inboards) = 1969, the louvers evoke the 65 -66 fastbacks, and the ribbed taillights do have a hint of the classic three segments within the 6 total segments.
thank you for the kind words… the early fox mustang may not be the most performance minded models, especially when one thinks of a fox Mustang, but they aren’t terrible either… these cars still have a little malaise in them, but I think that’s part of their charm for me… my 1980 Ghia is quite different than an atypical Mustang… brown paint, wire wheel covers with WSW tires, bright window and rocker moldings, woodtone appliqués on the dash, and a straight 6 cylinder engine to top it off… the 5.0 is fun to drive though and still moves well even being an automatic… and these cars are comfortable to drive and visibility is fantastic!
and I totally agree that the 79-82 taillights, which I LOVE, though aren’t popular among fox enthusiasts, do have a classic theme 3 piece theme in just 6 segments…
I also have a Marti report for the 1980 Ghia
Great article. I’ve thought for a while now that the Fox Mustang was the last real risk that Ford took with the Mustang. I’m not sure if a clean sheet will ever happen again, since the Mustang’s heritage seems to be more about honouring the past, rather than innovate in terms of styling. But then again, the Camaro and Challenger are doing the retro thing, too. I think that in ’79, the Mustang team still felt that there was time to re-define the car, rather than just do homages. But I think that the risk, today, is that Ford realizes that if they make a huge mistake, it could be fatal. The Mustang is one of those brands that everyone recognizes, even by people that don’t know much about cars.
One thing that I didn’t think of until recently, is that the Fox Mustangs were very versatile. I think that wire wheel covers suited some of the cars, depending on the colour and options. There was a bit of luxury there, almost like an updated version of the 60’s Cougar.
Luxury sure was there, if you wanted it. My mom’s ’79 was bizzaro in that regard; half white/chamois (tan) interior, matching white paint and a chamois vinyl top, with sunroof. Wood applique dash, wire wheel covers. Grossly baroque, looking back, but that car sure made a statement then. Nobody thought it was the semi-cheap box that it was.
As a huge early Fox body fan, I really enjoyed this read, it took me right back to another time, great work!
Of this particular group, I owned an ’80 notch that originally came with a 2.3L four and automatic which was swapped for a 302/C4 combo as a weekend project.
I also had a 1983 GLX 5.0L/T5 that I have penned on this site, another fantastic ride from my youth.
I’ll always have a place in my heart for these Mustangs… and the Fairmont, too!
My first new car was an 87 fastback, 2.3 5 speed. It was slow (though not in comparison to the 76 Courier it replaced!) It was dead reliable, stull runnig great when I sold it at 110k to get a more family friendly vehicle (4.0 5 speed 96 Cherokee 4wd).
I really like the 87 up back end treatment. It’s probably the only whale tail-ish spoiler that I actually like. I’m less fond of the front treatment, which looks a bit awkward to me. It seems to accentuate the front overhang (did it add some? I don’t know), and it almost looked higher than the hood. But I did appreciate that they were trying for some brand continuity with the then hot selling Taurus.
WRT the Taurus, I very nearly bought a jet black on black Taurus MT5 wagon – even then in my 20s I was really attracted to manual transmission wagons. But the Mustang was too new…
Well I don’t have the wagon, but I do have a 88 MT-5. Your 2.3 Mustang was faster, I guarantee it. And the Taurus eat’s tie rods and ball joints a whole lot more than a Fox Mustang. You dodged a bullet not getting the MT-5 wagon.
The 80-81 model years sold poorly due to the infamous Recession and higher interest rates. In the fall of ’78, before the second Oil crisis, there were a fair number of new ’79 cars sold, then we know the rest of the story.
And while I understand ‘four eyed pride’ fan base, don’t they really look like 1975 Chevy Monzas?
OTOH, Ford built a “better Monza”, sort of how Toyota built a better X car
No.
I don’t see any resemblance.
Other than the slanted nose and quad rectangular headlights the resembelance kind of ends. The bodystyling of the Monza was closer to a Mustang II, the Fox was much more rectilinear from the nose back.
actually, the 1980 Mustang sold quite well… 271,322 to be exact.. sure, it wasn’t as much as 1979, but 79 sales is one of the highest in the history of the marque… sales began to decline in 1981 and would struggle to reach 200k the rest of the way.
The only Ford I ever owned was a 1979 V8 notchback Mustang, a Ghia luxury model with the TRX suspension/tires package and a auto. That car was fast, and real fun to drive. White, and a red interior, really liked that car.
My recollections of the new (for 1979) Mustang and my first new car below:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1979-mustang-turbo-the-old-all-new-mustang/
The ’79 Mustang with a 302 was considered a very decent car when it came out.
Most of the Mustangs (and Capris) that had the V-6 engine in combination with the 3-speed automatic transmission and for most of the time when it was available, the auto trans was a mandatory option. For a very short period of time near the end of ’79 (and probably in early ’80) there were a handful of V-6 models built with the 4-speed manual transmission and they were considered very desirable by a particular subset of Mustang fans.
I had a college buddy who bought a new ’79 Cobra with the turbo 4 and it was a horrible lemon. He didn’t keep it for very long before he traded it for a an all-wheel drive Subaru station wagon.
My first car, purchased in 1989 when I was 17, was an ’82 GL hatchback with the 200/6. It was very slow, maybe 88 h.p. I was told it had California emissions, though I am in northwest Indiana. It took an incredible amount of abuse, as I fashioned my driving style on all the 80’s tv shows. It was bronze colored with orange (tall) pinstriping on the sides. Really cool black three spoke steering wheel and turbine hubcaps. I was new to cars and didn’t know how slow it was until I lost EVERY race I was in against anything, including a Cordoba and standard Dodge Colt. When the engine started smoking badly I got a good motor from a Faimont from the junkyard for cheap. The guys who were gonna put the engine in told me I had an C6 trans, a real oddball. I only know the bellhousing for it was enormous and the Fairmont must have had a C3 so no match. So I sold the Mustang and let the mechanics keep both engines. But I got almost as much for the engine-less car than I paid so no big deal. But it was a fun high school car for a year.
The hatchback body style allowed for some practicality. I’ve driven the current Mustang with the turbo 4 and if the current model could be had with a hatch, I might have bought one. Alas…
My wife bought a new ’79 Mustang just before we started dating. 2.3 with manual gearbox. A couple years later a friend bought a 1980, also 2.3 but automatic.
A few impressions… the manual had a huge edge on the automatic. While my wife’s car was slow, the friend’s car was glacial. Acceleration was so poor that it was very scary to merge onto a highway.
Handling was much improved over the Mustang II… a roommate had a Mustang II with manual and the V-6. While the powertrain was much better than the ’79 4 cyl, the handling was deplorable.
Finally, I cannot think of a car… at least that I’ve driven… with a larger turning circle than the ’79 Mustang. It was immense.
Very relatable! I was glad to have a manual box in my Fairmont Futura because I couldn’t stand it being any slower than it already was. And then there was my Mustang turbo with dead power steering and really wide aftermarket wheels I put on there. I didn’t have much of a choice, it was either that or TRX tires worth more than my very tired old Mustang. Any low speed steering was a workout for me.
i was eight years old – peak kid auto interest age in those days – in 1964 when the Mustang debuted. Love at first sight. That love affair lasted until 1971 when what I called the Bloatstang came out. Mustang II? Even worse; a pinto in Mustang clothing.
When the Fox Mustang appeared; my first thought was “This is a Mustang?” To me it looked more like a two-door Fairmont, no matter how it performed.
In 1994, I thought the ‘Stang got some of its mojo back, but the generic ford front end still put me off.
Finally, in 2005, a new Mustang appeared that was a worthy successor to the last real one, IMHO – the 1970. A thirty-five year dry spell.
I agree with Alan, 1973-2004 Mustangs were OK but the 2005 was great, then 2011 brings the 5.0L Coyote V8 and now we really have something. Only regrets on the new ones is weight gain, McCheap strut front suspension and the stick axle. Damn bean counters robbed us of IRS for the rear end.
I’d still take a 71-72 “Bloat Stang” as I think they make a fabulous looking drag car, some of the best looking funny cars were the Bloat Stangs, so what if you can’t see out the back windows, I’m interested in where I’m going, not where I’ve been!
I recently learned about the mental condition known as “Grosse Pointe Myopia” here at CC. It looks to me like Ford, launching the Fox platform was a Myopian cry for help.
The 1971 to 1973 Mustangs don’t seem to get much love on forums but I for one really like the ’71 and ’72 models in all configurations–fastback, convert and hardtop. In the right colors and optioned out right, these are good looking and fast cars. I like the ’73 slightly less due to (in my opinion) the body color front bumper. I prefer the smaller front bumpers (whether chromed or body color) of the two previous model years.