(first posted 3/22/2017) The 1979 Mustang was A New Hope compared with the previous generation Mustang II, which . . . well, you know how sometimes a classic movie gets remade, and yes, the remake sells more tickets than the original, but the remake is really crap? Like, how The Grinch took a beloved Christmas special and made it into a live action movie?
The Mustang II was cramped, lumpy, humpy-dumpy, and slow. The original Mustang hid its Falcon roots quite well but the II was obviously a Pinto in disguise, quite heavy, and although it may have been a reasonable competitor for the much lovelier but poorly made Monza/Sunbird/Firenza/Skyhawk from GM and the . . . nothing from Chrysler, and the even uglier but well made Japanese cars, the II wasn’t a Mustang. Yes, I still think Ford should have adopted the Capri for American production and called it a Mustang or tweaked the Maverick.
I’m not really certain which year Mustang this is; I do know it’s a fairly early production car because of the chrome trim and Fairmont woodgrain dash. It also lacks the blue oval. Undoubtedly someone more familiar with Mustangs can enlighten us as to its exact year. You don’t see very many of these early Mustangs in Atlanta and they don’t have the collectible status that a later model 4.9 (NOT A 5.0!) would.
The third Generation Mustang was based on the Fairmont/Fox platform, which was Iacocca’s best attempt at dragging Ford kicking and screaming into the Futura. GM had seen the FWD future and was busily coming up with the X cars, Chrysler had debuted the Omnirizon and was soon to debut the K car, and Ford debuted the Fairmont, which was leaps and bounds ahead of its Falcon based predecessors in weight, handling, with rack and pinion steering and MacPherson struts, fuel and space efficiency, and styling, but still RWD and with one foot firmly in the past.
Y’all, think about this: The Fairmont would be the penultimate American RWD four door family car platform ever developed, the absolute last being Ford’s Panther.
The 1979 Mustang was a vast improvement over the II; well, nearly anything would be. It was 200 lbs lighter than the II, handled better, and was much more space efficient with room in the back for smallish adults whom you don’t like very much. it was 179.1 inches long on a 100.4 inch wheelbase, which was a little shorter than the original Mustang, which had a 108 inch wheelbase and measured 181.6 inches from stem to stern.
If it looks familiar, it is; it would run with styling changes until 1993, one of the longest runs for a Mustang, and the platform received significant improvements/was significantly revised for 2004. This Mustang did not carry over the side scoops and humps and bulges of the previous generation but presented a clean, straight-edged, uncluttered, aerodynamic look. There were no cues, not a cantering horse, not even three segmented taillights, to indicate it was a Mustang. A new look for a new hope.
Its crisp notchback, canted prow, plastic grill around the rear window, clean lines, and general proportions can be seen in various Celicas, 200SXs, Sapporo/Challengers, the Omni/024, Pulsars, and a host of other small/sporty coupes that followed. Ford pushed 369,963 Mustangs out the door in 1979, which was astonishing given the state of the economy at the time and the second oil crisis, although below the debut of the original Mustang and lower than, but close to, the first year sales of the II at 385,993. The Mustang would consistently outsell its GM competition even with the introduction of the new Camaro/Firebird/Trans Am in 1983.
The Camaro debuted-four years later- with snazzier, Ferrari-esque styling compared with the Mustang’s more upright and boxy profile; the Camaro was also considerably more expensive, somewhat more cramped, and was apparently built in anger rather than in the United States if you read early reviews of the thing. Weekly trips to the dealer for serious issues were not uncommon, let alone minor nuisances like squeaks and rattles. The Mustang was decently built if you avoided the early turbo cars.
Underhood were the 2.3L 4 making 88 Hp, a carbureted and turbocharged 2.3L 4, the 2.8L Cologne V6 making 105 HP, a 3.3L inline 6, the 302/4.9, or, in 1980, 4.2L/255 gas crisis inspired V8, which was a down-sized 302. The 4.2L/255 produced a thundering 119 horsepower. Whether these smaller V8 actually yielded better real-world mileage is a good question; the whole idea seems pretty questionable to me. And within a couple of years, they were all gone again. Good riddance.
The 2.3L Turbo 4 was new in the Mustang, and also available in the Fairmont/Zephyr. 1979 was a big year for inflicting turbocharging on the public; Buick made turbocharging available in the Century/Regal and the LeSabre as well; Chevrolet would install the Turbo Buick engine in its Monte Carlo and in 1980, and the Trans Am was available with a Turbo 301. But carburetors, lack of effective computerized engine controls and a few other shortcoming meant that turbos would not become reliable until Buick adopted fuel injection technology and the Mass Air Flow sensor in 1984.
Turbos are also expensive to manufacture, and customers didn’t want them due to their reliability and driveability issues. The 2.3L Turbo 4 would be dropped after 1981 to return in fuel injected and computer-controlled form in the 1983 T-Bird Turbo Coupe, and in the 1984 Mustang SVO, and the Merkur XR4Ti. Ford’s Turbo 4 was still not as smooth and powerful than the 4.9 HO V8 option, and would disappear after 1986 in the Mustang. Buick’s 3.8 V6 with its extra pair of cylinders, was seemingly a better turbo engine and would far outperform its V8 counterpart. Of course, nowadays, just about everything is turbocharged.
In 1979, the Mustang competed against a vast variety of small sporty coupes; the main competition, then as now were the by-then ancient but still more powerful Camaro/Firebird/Trans Am. Toyota Celicas, Plymouth Sapporos/Dodge Challengers, Omnirizon coupes, Honda Preludes, Mazda 626s, Datsun 280Zs and 200SXs, Mazda RX7s, Chevrolet Monzas, Pontiac Sunbirds, Oldsmobile Firenzas and Buick Skyhawks, AMC Spirits, Fiat X 1/9s all vied for consumer dollars against the Mustang. You could probably stretch this to include sportyish cars like the Malibu, Monte Carlo, other A bodies, Thunderbirds, Cougars, and sportier versions of the Aspen/Volare. Ford itself generated competition internally with the Mustang with the Thunderbird, Cougar, XR4Ti, EXP, and Probe. And of course the Capri.
The Mustang outlived almost all of them. Today, the Camaro and the Challenger is still with us, although the Dodge’s extra size makes it more of a midsized muscle car than a compact pony car and it has no convertible variant. If you want a hardtop and a back seat, the Challenger would seem to have a definite advantage over the Mustang. The Mustang when I was growing up in the ‘80’s had a definite mullet-Marlboros-and-Miller reputation although not quite as pronounced as the Camaro/Trans Am.
I’ve almost entirely forgotten to write about this particular example. When I first saw it a couple (couple meaning- anywhere from two to ten) of years ago, the paint was much better, but the clear coat is beginning to peel. I noticed the rubber trim on the passenger side door is beginning to come off. It has little tiny whitewall Uniroyals which make me insanely jealous; I live at the home of the Brougham with two Cadillac Broughams and an Oldsmobile station wagon and it is so hard to find whitewalls nowadays.
By 2017 standards, this would be a stripper with manual windows, its original AM radio, neat four lug factory alloy wheels, automatic transmission, very thick Naugahyde interior in very good shape for however old it is, and only a few cracks around the bolsters, and probably air conditioning. It has the plastiwood dash from the Fairmont. Someone has loved this car, and I hope he or she gets many, many more years of life out of it, and if they expire before it does, may it bring a new hope to someone else.
It’s probably an 80 or 81. The 79 had its inside door handles placed at floor level, a less than better idea that Ford quickly rethought.
’79’s also had a one-year-only decklid that lacked the slight raised lip on the trailing edge.
It’s a 1980. It has the higher interior door handles but still has the chromed bezels around the headlights.
Edit: Crud. Sonic R beat me to it. My mother had a 1981 Ghia, while I had a 1980 Mercury Capri RS turbo.
Also, the featured car has full width wheel covers. Those are not alloys. The contemporary Fairmonts/Zephyrs of the day had those wheel covers, also.
A few things… the next gen Camaro/Firebird debuted in 1981 for the 1982 model year..
And the featured Mustang is a 1980 model… simply going by the interior door trim… has the hard plastic door panel with the circle around the window crank, and the door handle on the upper portion of the door – 79 had the infamous door handle mounted down by the floor and 81 had a newer, softer door panel..
Here is my 1980 Ghia door/interior
Swap the seat fabric for perforated vinyl, and that’s my first car, a 1980 Ghia, down to the caramel-colored interior.
I’d forgotten about the circular motif molded into the door panels, behind the window crank. Thanks for posting!
I always found it strange how Turbos survived an early bad reputation but Diesels did not.
I had never noticed the lack of the horse mascot on the early Fox Mustang. But then these weren’t really on my radar in 1979 when I was wallowing in the pitiful sorrow of a Mopar fetishist.
You make a great point that the 79 might be the only really clean-sheet Mustang (in its concept) besides the original.
There is a horse mascot on these early Fox bodies, but age has obscured it on this example. The round badge on the hood includes a traditional Mustang side view, but plastic is clouded over and hiding Ford’s efforts on the example here.
There was a horse (“Mustang”) on this model. It was embedded in the logo on the hood. In its heyday, the logo was a silver, running mustang on a red, white, and blue textured background, but much of the luster, not to mention color, was lost to time and sun fading. Sort of an ironic logo given the rather meek horsepower ratings on the engines. If I recall correctly, the average power of these cars was around 120 bhp. If you were lucky enough to have a fully functional turbo four (see the reference above to poor reliability), you actually had more power than the V8 for the years when it was available.
The car I learned to drive on was a brown version of this specific model and it had the anemic 200 straight six. It produced somewhere in the range of 85 bhp and was effectively strangled by all sorts of era-specific smog controls and a small single barrel carburetor. Want A/C? Turn it on (when it worked at least), and your acceleration went from slow to absolutely glacial. Despite its lack of power, though, it was surprisingly fuel efficient (26mpg highway). It also lasted far longer than I would expect any car from the malaise era to. When it finally gave up, the car had 210k miles on the odometer (more specifically, 10k, but it had rolled over twice). Burned as much oil and power steering fluid as it did gas at the end though.
I never understood why Ford America didn’t use the crossflow head Ford Australia used on this engine. Despite the advent of our emission laws, the 200 and 250 with the new head produced more power than the old. Still iron at this stage, so easy to cast, and already proven in service since 1976. But ‘Not Invented Here’ I guess. What an opportunity lost!
(Still, I guess they couldn’t make the six look too good or nobody would buy the V8.)
The crossflow head actually came out around this time. 1976, to be exact, upgraded to aluminum in 1980.
But before that, the glaring flaw in the sixes was addressed. It originally had that cast-in intake manifold, which distributed intake gases unevenly and only accepted a one-barrel carburetor. To accommodate a two-barrel, Ford Australia in 1970 added a detachable, better designed manifold, which could have been adopted stateside easily. Many people imported the heads as upgrades.
Ford Australia didn’t stop with two-barrels and crossflows, though. They added a two-barrel Weber carb as standard, later went to Bosch fuel injection. a single overhead cam in 1988, and then extensively redesigned the engine in 2002, adding another cam and creating the famed Barra engine.
Interestingly enough, thanks to the attention paid to them, the sixes were viable options to the V8’s that were also available in Ford’s larger cars, and they were even offered in Aussie-built Cortinas.
Australians don’t have the same attitude towards inline sixes that Americans do. To us, they were the cheapskate option. But one of Australia’s fastest muscle cars, the Charger E49, was a six-cylinder and the Barras carry on that tradition.
Clear coat delamination, caused by breakdown of the chemical bond between the clear and the underlying color coat, is today’s paint failure, though at this age, deterioration of the paint can be expected. In olden, pre-clearcoat times, paint would lose gloss at the surface and you could try to bring it back with copious application of polishing compound and muscle power. It might last a while. But oxidation would continue to take its toll and eventually the primer would start to show through…another form of patina!
My last factory non-clearcoat was a 1986 Ford Taurus wagon in nonmetallic red, possibly the predecessor of the clearcoat red on this Mustang. We called it “The Tomato.” Its factory paint outlasted the clearcoat on a metallic grey 1987 Mercury Sable wagon (“The Grey Whale”) which delaminated, beginning at seven years old.
Unfortunately, fixing delamination properly is expensive, requiring removal of all the clear coat before repainting.
Paint on this one ha lased 10 yeas more than my Miata. Any 7 year ols car with original paint is going to need aespray.
I remember these, if not fondly .
.
Please teach me to why the turbos were bad ? .
.
I have several turbochargers that went 300,000 + miles sans problems, I only overhauled them because it seemed smart to do .
.
Garret T3’s on my old Mercedes diesels .
.
Did American cars use cheaper ones ? .
.
Garret turbochargers are really simple, I can’t see how they’d be expen$ive to manufacture .
.
-Nate
Gasoline engines are different than diesels. For both, turbocharging accomplishes the same thing, turning waste exhaust heat energy into extra “compression” for efficiency and power. The main difference is in average exhaust gas temperature (EGT). Diesels run so lean at idle and low power that the excess air makes the EGT extremely low, except at full power. Spark ignition engines need a near perfect air/fuel ratio just to run, with the resulting higher EGT at all times. This cooks the turbo. Add to this the fact that gasoline engine motor oils weren’t that good back then, turbo bearings coked up, resulting in failure. Diesel engine oils, such as Delo or Rotella, were more robust, since turbodiesels had been around for a long time.
I remember my brother-in-law using Rotella in all our gas engines too. He said it was better.
THANK YOU ! .
.
Rotella is a Diesel rated oil that’s supposedly pretty good .
.
I prefer synthetics .
.
-Nate
Synthetics were not mainstream back then. Now they are and gasoline engines with turbos dont have the same problems.
The major problem was the lack of quality control in these motors. The draw-through carb wasn’t really suited for this kind of duty. The head gaskets were usually a casualty in these instances also. Ford cheaped out horribly on these engines which still has effects to this day.
The carb on my 1980 Capri RS was defective, my head gaskets blew and the electronic engine controls were too primitive to handle all of the processes going on in that engine. The EEC-IV, fuel injected motors that came out in the mid-80’s were MUCH better, but by then, Ford turbo motors had a bad reputation.
Buick (GM) and Chrysler did turbos better than Ford.
Nate,
I remember those horrendous days of early turbocharged motors in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Some manufacturers had attempted the turbocharged motors for the public road in the past, namely Chevrolet Corvair, Porsche 911, etc. The production was too limited and too specialised for the manufacturers to gather the real world experience and improve their turbocharged motors. The manufacturers had a very steep learning curve in figuring out how to eliminate the glitches and improve the durability and performance of turbocharged motors in the real world. That cost the consumer perception of early turbocharged motors.
You were commenting about the Mercedes-Benz diesel motors with excellent turbochargers lasting forever. Keep in mind: Mercedes-Benz was more of adding a bit extra oompah to their slow diesel motors rather than turning them into high performance such as Porsche 911 Turbo. The diesel motors are built to be more durable due to higher compression and stress.
The biggest issue was oil coking (not choking) and shaft seizure. When the oil is heated up intensely, it turns into thick molasses or some sort of sticky powder. The shaft spins up to 100,000 rpm and is right next to the hot exhaust gas. That requires prodigious amount of oil running through as to lubricate and cool the shaft. The early turbochargers didn’t have a system that continued to pump oil through the shaft after the motor was shut down until the temperature was down to the safe level. Despite the manufacturer’s stern advice, many early adopters never bother waiting for a few minutes before shutting down the motor.
The early versions lacked intercoolers to cool down the compressed air. Thus, that dreadful knocking at the inopportune time. The petrol motors weren’t beefed up for hotter intake air, leading to the gasket and mechanical failure. The intercoolers were subsequently added later but too late to rescue the ill-gotten reputation.
That turbo lag! I had ridden several early turbocharged cars to notice the glaring issue. Some turbochargers would take a while to spool up during the acceleration, meaning nothing happened for half second or such after mashing the pedal to the metal. The characteristic can be disorienting with some drivers expecting an instant acceleration and trying to grasp when the car suddenly shot ahead.
The cost difference is what killed the early turbochargers. Some people didn’t understand why would they pay for smaller, stressed-out four-cylinder motors when they could get the easy-going I6 or V8 motors for the same price.
All right, what had changed today?
Many manufacturers have figured out many issues and improved the performance and cost benefit ratio.
Today, it’s more common to see two turbochargers in sequence: smaller, high pressure one that spools up very quickly—useful for acceleration—and larger, low pressure one that provides the increased performance at higher rpm. The sequential turbochargers introduced in the 1990s are ‘holy grail’ as they eliminated most of annoying issues and made driving more exhilarating experience.
Intercoolers are often fitted in turbocharged vehicles today. That and the electronic engine control have mostly eliminated the turbo lags. The synethic oil had been developed specifically for the turbocharged motors along with improved cooling system.
I hope I have answered your questions.
THANX, O.T. ! .
.
Indeed you answered all my questions and I imagine others here will enjoy learning the details as I did .
.
The old Mercedes Diesel didn’t use intercoolers nor did they have the cute little electric oil pumps that keep oil circulating yet the turbos last a long, long time ~ longer than most folks keep their vehicles (Mercedes Diesel Nutters like me notwithstanding) .
.
I didn’t realize how fast that sucker spins ~ I’d though 40,000 RPMs or so and was impressed by that .
.
Interestingly, there are no normal seals in the turbo and the impeller floats on the bushings in a film of oil .
.
The turbo lag is evident in my Coupe but _not_ in my 7 passenger fully loaded Wagon, go figure .
.
A guy I used to work with, bought one of those Buicks with the turbo, the paint failed on a two year old car so he bought it for pennies, re sprayed it and really enjoyed driving it for about a year before the call of the Almighty Dollar got him to sell it at an absurd profit margin .
.
Garret T3 turbochargers are absurdly simple and cheap to rebuild, just takes a couple specific tools and an eye for detail and patience .
.
-Nate
Great find and write-up.
I remember when thinking about these cars in the 1980s, it seemed that the ’79+ Mustang was most significant in terms of design — that it marked one of the first major forays into a new decade (and era) of car design. But looking back with a few more decades of separation, it seems that its performance impact was just as, if not more significant. These car really marked the beginning of our slow ascent from the depths of the Malaise Era.
Despite this car’s significance, the early Fox Mustangs seem often overlooked, so it’s great to read about them here.
Son No. 2 had an ’84 notchback “L” trim for his first car (2.3 carb’d, manual and no power anything). While he remembers it fondly now, at the time, we really grew to hate it. I had to bring him home on the trailer more than once. This was pre ODB, but you could trigger a test mode that would flash certain dashboard lights in a sequence to help diagnose. He finally ran it out of oil one night and that was the end of that.
That smaller grille on the later models looks way better and more distinctive. Nice looking car, if not the best mechanically.
Wow, the Mustang II gets a lot of hate on CC. If one were to really analyze the original Fox Mustang right down to its Fairmont dashboard (except with round dials) then there could be a lot of hate for it as well. A Fairmont based Mustang? Really? I guess I am partial and feel the lashing out on the Mustang II isn’t fair. It sold like crazy and looked great – keeping the Mustang name alive for five years after the huge behemoth it replaced tanked in sales. Do I like the restyled ’79 Mustang? Sure I do. But it’s not like a brand new Mustang was derived from the ground up. Over the years it was perfected, but it started out with humble beginnings. Let’s be honest here.
Mustang II gets a lot of hate everywhere, unfortunately. No it was not what it had become. But it did get back to it roots of small affordable “sporty” (relative to the times) car like the original. and I thought, as a 9 – 10 y/o and older, that it had some very nice design cues. I liked it better than the 79 when it got boxy and angular. The frontend of the Mustang II was wonderful. I looked at all the subtle curves and lines a lot. And how they did refer back the the original in ways.
^^^ This. I felt exactly the same way.
When I look at the front end all I see is scaled down Gran Torino
Cool Matt….never saw that until now!
I can find something to like about all Mustangs, except I don’t care for the 94-04 ones. And yes, I like the II’s.
A Fairmont based Mustang? Really?
The Fox platform was designed from the get-go to be used by both the Fairmont and the Mustang. That was not the case with the MII, and its resultant mediocre handling due to too much weight on its too-short front end was directly the result of starting with the Pinto platform.
The ’79 Mustang may have been pragmatic, and not very exciting to look at, but it was fundamentally a much better chassis and starting point, as was proven over its long and successful life.
Maybe ‘Mustang built on a Fairmont based platform’ would have sounded better.
Not to me. They both use the Fox platform, which was specifically designed for both of them. So neither is based on the others platform.
I don’t see how basing the Mustang on the “Fairmont platform” is any worse than basing it on a Falcon platform, which wasn’t designed to underpin a sporty car and was already 4-1/2 years old at the Mustang’s launch. Yes, the Fox platform was designed for both the Fairmont and Mustang from the start even though the Mustang had to wait a year. And only those two cars (and their Mercury equivalents) apparently; Fox-based Continentals, Marks, and LTDs weren’t part of the plan.
According to Wikipedia, Fox was originally also to be used to replace Pinto and Cortina, but plans changed.
Really?
The first ones were Falcon based, so can say “A Falcon based Mustang Really?”
Mustangs were never like Corvettes, a stand alone sports car. And no one ever expected a Mustang in 1979 to be “new from the ground up” Again, Really?
We can all agree to disagree. I do not come to this website to be bullied.
I think the Mustang II hid its Pinto roots better than this hides its bones. The fully framed door glass, two-door sedan B-pillar and tall seating position made the early Fox Mustang look too much like the shortened Fairmont that it was. To my eyes, the lack of any unique body detailing or traditional elements like pony emblems and triple taillights along with the Fairmont dash only enhanced the appearance of it being something done on the cheap.
The Omni O24 and Horizon TC3 coupes that were introduced at the same time were far more differentiated from their platform mates.
+1
And where are the Omni 2 doors these days? And where is the “National Omni Racing Association” club? Where is the huge aftermarket for O24’s?
To quote someone on here, Omni O24? Really?
The Fairmont dash in the Mustang got a lot of criticism in its day but I always liked it. Full instrumentation, good ergonomics, good looks. Lots of factory trim options (two species of woodgrain, black, dash color, high-tech printed grid, etc.) Red lighting on mid-’80s models in the last years before the redesigned interior. Same dash also used on the Granada except for specific square gauges.
Also, if you don’t like the framed door glass, order the T-tops and you’ll get frameless doors. Looks especially good with the flush rear side glass used in ’87-88.
Wait a second. “And the even uglier but well made Japanese cars…” This is uglier than a Mustang II?
That Celica is the exception.
True. Most other offerings from Japan back then were odd to say the least.
the oddity of japanese cars is what made them interesting. the mustang 2 however imo was an abortion.
The Mazda Cosmo was nice; not sure if that would be considered a Mustang competitor but it was about the same size.
Datsun F10 was one to scare little kids, for one.
And that early Silvia (can’t think of the US name) we saw here last week.
It’s the SX-200
The Mitsubishi Galant GTO wasn’t bad either.
Having grown up in the foxbody age of Mustangs and owning a 93 GT myself, I’ve always loved the Fox. But the early ones with V6 power and especially the notchback body style such as the featured car has never done anything for me. I actually see the featured car regularly, or I used to anyway, when I was working on an ambulance. I don’t know where it lived but I would see it in various parking lots in and around Dekalb county, and as time went on I began to appreciate it a little more. Not for its looks but because it was nice to see it was still on the road being driven regularly. BTW, I’d love to see your Olds wagon. Had I know that a fellow CC b body man was so close to me, I would have loved to have donated my beloved 86 Electra Estate Wagon to you when I moved houses. My wagon was near perfect on the inside, had 0 rust and a laser straight body. My wife (gf at the time) blew up the 307 on a trip to Athens and when it came time to move from Powder Springs to Woodstock, I had to part with it sadly. I refused to sell it off as junk and was willing to give it to someone who would keep her on the road.
The early Fox Mustang coupes (’79-’82) and the Futura/Z7 coupes will always rival each other as my all-time favorite car… not too sure why… but the fondness I have for these malaise-y machines is almost ridiculous!
The 1979 model year was perfectly fine for US auto sales, rolling along as they had since 1976. It was the all time high for Corvette. No surprise that a fresh, improved Mustang was well received.
US auto sales went into the dumper for 1980, esp for luxury and sport models.
I bought a 79 Mustang Cobra new from a country dealer. It had the TRX suspension and the turbocharged 4. Fabulous car stayed with me until baby came along in 1982. I also modified it which seemed like a good idea back then. Our family had three other Fox body Mustangs years later. All good cars with different trim levels and engines.
Always looking for a nice early Fox body car, hard to find now.
It’s almost impossible to find tires for those TRX wheels nowadays
Coker Tire now offers 16″ sized TRX tires and wheels as compared to the roughly 15″ TRX offered back in the day.
A tire shop here told me your can still order the original size TRX tires through Michelin and their supplier in France. Like that is going to happen, although it did cross my mind while debating whether I should keep or sell the 84 GT convertible I have. The previous owner managed to run the original TRX set up until I bought the Mustang back in 2009.
Wagonlove: this is my daily so when you see it at the Publix at north decatur and clairmont say hi
Ha! I’ve actually taken pictures of your car then. I’ve gotten plenty of subs from that Publix and have seen your car several times. I’m also a big fan of Fleetwoods.
The Fox Mustang was a breath of fresh on the automotive scene of 1979.
It was a car I had to have. As I said our family had a few Fox Mustangs over the years. I bought the 1981 yellow Ghia back but it was too rusty (costly) to bring back to its former glory. It was my favorite with a very reliable and smooth straight six
The 3.3L (200 CID) straight-six in the early Fox Mustang rarely gets mentioned, and I’d be curious as to why. It seems like it would have been a fine choice during the time of the lackluster 2.3L fours and the really lame 255 V8. The only issue would be that I’d imagine you could only get the six with an automatic. Still, for the time, the torque of the 3.3L six would seem to be fine for the Fox Mustang. Maybe during the time of high fuel prices no one was much interested in anything but the most frugal Mustang powertrains, and I don’t think the 200 six was ever all that great for gas mileage.
A four speed manual transmission was available for the 3.3 litre six in 1980. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that combination in an early Fox Mustang.
The 81 Ghia I drove had an automatic and the car had a light and nimble feel to it. On the highway you could expect 30 mpg. Same as the 80 Fairmont wagon we had for a couple of years. The wagon also had the six with automatic. Don’t recall what fuel consumption was around the city I’m assuming around 25 mpg.
As a side note my father’s 62 Comet with a 170 CID six and three on the tree was also capable of 30 mpg. Makes me think Ford didn’t put much effort into refining the old straight six.
My 1979 200 six Fairmont drank gas like a V8 barely giving me 200 miles on a tank. The few times I tested it i came up with around 20 which I considered rather poor for the lackluster power and light weight of that car registering at 2703 LBS. My grandfathers 1980 200 six Fairmont wagon was even slower and almost glacial and got even worse MPG never hitting more than 21-22 for highway trips. They were in perfect tune with low miles at the time too.
Now you’ve reminded me of how bad the turbo four was in my 79 Mustang. Perhaps 20 mpg cruising at 65 mph. The small tank didn’t help either. Perhaps a cruising range of 400 miles. More than a few times in the Rockies I’d be wondering if the car would have enough fuel to make the next gas station.
small tank…20 mpg…400 mile range…a 20 gallon tank is small?
I’ve only ever seen one car with a 20+ gallon tank, Mom’s ’86 Parisienne (25 gallons). Even my Panthers only held 19.
Not sure what size the Fairmont tank is but Mustangs were 15 gallon, which I do consider kind of small. That always was a bit of a deal breaker for me.
The 200, in the Mustang at least, wasn’t a particularly powerful motor. Heavily strangled by smog controls (first non-California car I ever saw with an air pump that injected air directly into the exhaust stream at each exhaust port) and pulling fuel through that single barrel carb didn’t help it at all. However, it was fairly fuel efficient for the time. I don’t recall what the city mileage was, but highway was decent (approx 26mpg). In addition, as you said, the torque was more than adequate, particularly since the car was very lightweight, somewhere around 2600 pounds I think. Probably would have done better if it had a manual option as the three speed auto had no overdrive, or torque lockup (probably predated that tech by a few years, but I’m not certain).
I once drove a 1981 base hatchback with the 3.3L & 4 speed manual combination. It was quick off the draw and responded well the with manual, certainly much more lively performance than the Mustang (and Fairmont/Zephyr) examples I drove with the 3.3L and automatic.
I believe the 4-speed manual was available on the 3.3L right from 1979 to 1982. There was a 3.3L & 3 speed manual in the 1978 Fairmont/Zephyr, but I don’t believe that this was ever offered in the Fox Mustang.
My 1980 Mustang Ghia has the 3.3L straight 6 and 4-speed SROD… it’s really not that bad… fast? Not neck snapping by any means but it moves well enough in today’s traffic.. along the lines of any contemporary 4 cylinder car….
I like it and it’s quite a fun little cruiser.. fun to drive and always gets positive comments!
That SROD transmission is the one that Car & Driver referred to as a five-speed with a missing third gear. Of course, the transmission gear ratios were slightly different depending on the rear axle ratio so maybe it wasn’t quite as noticeable with the 3.3L as, say, the V8.
The ’79 Mustang originally offered the Cologne 2.8L V6 that was more powerful than the largest straight 6 that was substituted later that year due to supply problems. Cars so equipped received chrome “2.8” emblems on their fenders in the same placement and font as the better-known 5.0 badges.
Wagonlove: this is my Olds wagon which should be getting an ls 6.0
Oh man I love it. That’s what I wanted to do with mine. Either an ls or a 455
It may come to pass that only “car guys” of a certain age will ever really love this generation of Mustang – much like some have some love for the Fairmont.
In the reverse CC effect, my wife and I were recently in traffic near an excellent ’87 or so GT hatch, all black, really the best of this generation as far as collectors are concerned. Even in that trim, my wife just didn’t like it, and my kids have no use for this generation. But, they love all the succeeding generations.
In a chat about the car, I explained this car’s Fairmont roots, and that a few folks have built a Mustang “wagons” putting the Mustang clip on the Fairmont. My wife was almost disgusted, she considers herself a victim of Fairmont ownership while in college (in 1980 Mercury Zephyr trim) and regards the Fairmont as probably most do – the largest American economy car ever built, complete with penalty box levels of style, trim, fit, and finish.
I drove and serviced her Zephyr several times, and gained an appreciation for it in the “honest car” way that is frequently expressed on the CC pages.
But, the ’79 Mustang was a bit dismaying for many at the time and is as polarizing for some as the Mustang II.
I was in senior high school when this car debuted, and it was quite the pleasant surprise in the fall of 1978. Particularly coming from Ford, which had embraced the entire “Brougham” concept more enthusiastically than its domestic competitors.
The styling was fresh, new and clean. It was also more than a little amazing that, in the era of downsizing, this car was actually larger outside than the Mustang II, while still weighing less. This from Ford, the company that, in 1977, had promoted its old-school full-size cars as having more “road-hugging weight” than the downsized GM competition. Even the luxury “Ghia” trim level was a nice change – the interior had a premium look, but it was not overstuffed or overdone.
One of my high school teachers was a Ford loyalist, and he traded a 1974 Mercury Cougar XR-7 for a 1979 Ghia hatchback in light metallic blue. I rode in it a few times, and it was a very nice car for the era.
If anything, I appreciate this car now (along with the Fairmont/Zephyr) more than I did at the time.
That inherent goodness is no small part of what saved Ford in the early ’80s. I’ll admit being dismayed by the ’79, the Fairmont cowl height, framed door windows and lack of a V-8 again made me appreciate the ancient GM F-Body in a new way.
But, by ’84, revisions large and small across the Ford line, a better focus on quality, the implosion of GM quality and the K-Carization of Chrysler made a Ford guy out of me. The Mustang grew on me, and my wife and I looked at an ’89 Mustang LX 5.0 notch when car shopping – for her!!
She just does not recall, but I was drawn to the tidy looks, subtle 5.0 badge, and handling way beyond the barges I typically drove.
Like you said, a good package for the times, but a head scratcher for some folks who don’t recall the times.
Many ’79s were equipped with the 140 hp 2 bbl 302 V8 which was carried over from ’78. It was de-bored and became the much maligned (and forgotten) 255 V8 for 1980-81, with the revised 157 hp 302 returning in ’82.
It was only in 1974 that the Mustang had no V8 option. The Fox bodies carried one right from 1979-93.
My bad here. I recall such a big deal made by Ford and the media with the return of the 302 and the first hint of lift from the Malaise era that I lost track of the 255 as an option. ’79 was such an odd model year with stricter CAFE on the horizon and oil prices skyrocketing as it was concluding. The 302 ’79 Mustang reminds me of the disappearance of the 351 Panther cars after 1979. Peak Malaise is hard to pin down, but it may have been 1980.
Very nice little factoid about the 1974 Mustang being the only one in its long history where a V8 was unavailable. With that in mind, it’s hard to deny that fuel mileage was a major factor with those first year Mustang IIs, considering the huge number they managed to move.
“It may come to pass that only “car guys” of a certain age will ever really love this generation of Mustang…”
Disagree. The Fox is appreciating in value, and anecdotally, they seem to be well-liked by a broad demographic.
More Fox-body Mustangs are now popping up for sale at the Carlisle events. The problem is that most of them have been modified in some way. A clean, unmolested Fox-body Mustang is definitely a keeper.
A broad demographic that nearing it’s old car buying peak – these were the high school and college Mustangs of my youth. Anecdotally, I’m no so sure there are many fans in the age groups behind us. Some cars seem to peak and fall as the fans begin to die off.
I think foxbodies are to Mustangs as the C3s are to Corvettes with enthusiasts. Appreciation is hard when they’re made for well over ten years, with big chunks of the runs badly affected by malaise era mechanicals. But the inherent qualities are there in both, in basically opposite ways to the extreme. The Vette wasn’t quite as elegant as the C2 but on the other hand no Vette since has looked quite as wild either, and the Mustang, while lacking obvious defining character traits of both it’s predecessors and successor, still manages to look and feel like a true Mustang despite it. As both become more scarce they start to become much more charming for what they are.
I think the Mustangs that may only ever appeal to car guys of a “certain age” (like me) will probably be the SN95 era. Those would be the C4 of Mustangs, with the 03-04 Cobra it’s ZR1.
Fox Mustangs are the Tri Five Chevy for car people under 50.
Ford pulled a “Gremlin” with this one. By that I mean they did essentially the same thing as AMC did with their Hornet/Gremlin platform. Ford took a workaday sedan, the Fairmont/Zephr, with its 105″ wheelbase and cut it down into a shorter platform with a 100″ wheelbase and restyled body. Guess where those 5″ went – yup, stolen from the back seat. Though it didn’t have the radical kammback rear end of Gremlin, in concept it was the same idea.
Biggest difference is that Ford had a much more modern platform to work with than AMC did. I’ll bet if you compared a similarly equipped Fairmont Futura 2-dr and a Mustang back to back they would have driven and rode much the same.
The first Hornet and Gremlin were identical (except for the grille) from the B-pillar forward. The Mustang’s cowl was at a different height compared to the Fairmont’s cowl – an expensive change – which gave the Mustang’s hood more slope.
The Fairmont was also slightly wider than the Mustang – 71 inches versus 69.1 inches, although both cars had the same front and rear tread.
I defer to you on car knowledge to no small degree, but I’m really surprised by the changes to the Mustang that you mention – I said the opposite in an earlier comment, mostly because of this……..
Dave B, I took the width and tread measurements from the sales brochures for the 1979 Fairmont and Mustang.
As to the change in cowl height for the Mustang – that was contained in a Mustang book (I can’t remember the title). I believe that stylist Jack Telnack lobbied for that change. The fact that Ford management agreed to it is surprising, given the cost of making that change to the basic Fairmont platform.
So was the Mustang cowl higher or lower than the Fairmont’s?
la673, the Mustang’s cowl was higher than the cowl of the Fairmont/Zephyr. That way more slope could be added to the hood, which emphasized the slope of the front-end ensemble.
Ahhhh yes, the unicorn-status Fairstang wagon! I’d drive one of those.
Mustang’s execution aside(which is, as mentioned, a bit more extensive than that), that concept was hardly invented by the Gremlin, GM’s split wheelbase stratagies for the 1968 A-body coupes was the same thing – lop down 4″ of rear seat wheelbase from the sedan. The original Mustang stole rear seat space too, instead of chopping the cabin shorter though the front half of the passenger compartment was moved back. IOW mustang back seats were always decorative torture chambers.
I agree about the Mustang’s back seat being a torture chamber. I remember riding a few times in my aunt’s ’68 ‘Stang in the summer of 1980 when I was 16. I was always crammed in back while so my mom could sit up front. Terrible, wretched car, low, cramped back seat, hard pounding ride and growly V-8 with a stick. Though my aunt was skilled at driving a manual transmission, I never liked the resulting ride motions as she constantly shifted. I was never a fan of sports cars like these, and this experience turned me off them completely. Just never saw the appeal.
I don’t know if one can use Camaro and Challenger as “still with us” since they were discontinued for significant numbers of years before being revived.
Mustang never left us, regardless of what one thinks of the Mustang II.
None of the three can ever be considered a “hardtop” since all have a B pillar and fixed rear windows.
I used to dislike these Mustangs as they bore no resemblance to the ones before. But they were the right size, weight and width and, compared to today’s Mustangs [Suddenly It’s 1971], are a lot better looking.
Today’s mustang is gorgeous. And the flat plane crank gt350 is out of this world. Right now I think america is making the best bargains in sports cars. We’re in the middle of s HP war and we don’t even know it. Hellcat for eg. Factory mustang doing 200 mph. And they handle like no other pony cars have. I do agree that its 1971 again. The only thing that I hate is that mustangs are a very common sight on the road. A 2015 gt goes by and I don’t even look anymore. But they are still pretty regardless
Eye of the beholder. The 71 Mustang is gorgeous to some as well. I don’t think anyone can argue the great leaps in tech with the Coyote 5.0 or the FPC 5.2 used in the GT350 or the hellcat (I think that’s fairly pointless though, but I’m not impressed by blowers and turbos personally). But there is no secretary’s Mustang anymore, it’s all muscle all the time. You can’t get a notch because it’s not racey enough(and it’s cheaper having one bodystyle) and the fastback, just like the old fastbacks, have terrible trunk access and visibility. You have all this power and people are still terrible drivers (insert cliche internet mustang crash joke). We may be able to sit back and admire are statistical achievements, but it’s kind of like the moon landing, great to admire, yet I know I’ll never go there. 11 second quarter miles and 200mph stopped being useful car benchmarks to me by the time I was 20, and good looking cars don’t need to look like they’re going to eat you in anger.
To be fair to today’s engineers, I’d suspect that modern Federal standards, as well as American consumer expectations of crashworthiness, have a lot to do with the bloated looks and weight of the current Mustang and Camaro. The dainty Mustangs and Camaros of 1967 are hard to reproduce with current technology.
That statement got me thinking. If Ford has figured out how to fabricate the body of a similarly priced (within $1500) F-150 in aluminum, why not an aluminum bodied lightweight Mustang?
The F-150 is far more profitable, and the kind of investment required is way too much for such a low volume(and shrinking) model such as the Mustang.
IF the tooling is more expensive. Investment in the processes has already been paid for by the more profitable F-150.
The bloated looks, esp for sport models, are because of huge wheel-tire combos. That goes back to the 70s.
“Ford pushed 369,963 Mustangs out the door in 1979, which was astonishing given the state of the economy at the time and the second oil crisis”
Again, if not around back then, don’t make quick assumptions. This was a new ‘small’ car, and buyers were hungry for a them, plus a new Mustang. Camaro had its biggest sale year in ’79 also. Small was “in” and fall of ’78 was still an OK time to buy new car.
As someone pointed out, 1980 saw a big car sales decline. Due to high interest rates, unemployment, inflation, and gas woes.
The second gas crunch began in the early spring of 1979 in California after the Iranian Revolution (February 1979), and then spread eastward. There were gas lines in Pennsylvania in the early summer.
The sales of big cars were hurt first, and then sales of all cars tanked for the 1980 model year (which began in the early fall of 1979).
Oh I remember Oil Crisis 2 well, just saying that small car sales did well for awhile. The author says “astonishing” for the Stang’s sales #’s, which IMHO is over doing it.
GM’s re-skinned ’80 big cars were supposed to be a “sales splash”, but not until 1983.
Exactly. And it’s impossible for today’s younger generation to even understand, but there was still a lot of anti-Japanese-car sentiment in the 1970s (myself included).
And Japanese cars, even if you wanted one, were limited in volume, resulting in months-long wait times and high prices. So there was a huge demand for smaller American cars. Look at how many AMC Pacers were sold in its first year.
Mustang sales were still very strong in 1980…
1980 was still one of the best years in sales for the fox body, and Ford would have a field day if they ever sold Mustangs today if they sold as many in 1980…
Ford sold 271,364 Mustangs for 1980!
That Mustang looks so familiar. My Aunt’s sister had a ’79 Mustang, 2.3 I4, with those same wheel covers. Tan with a light brown vinyl interior. I rode in that one several times as a child, and then it went to my oldest cousin when he turned 16. Got a cheap red repaint which made it the virtual twin of the feature car. Slow? Check. Reliable? Not by 1996 it wasn’t. Fancy? Nope. I think it had A/C once but that had long since stopped working. But it made it through Dan and his younger brother before finally giving up the ghost sometime around 1999. Not bad for a humble 4-cylinder ‘Stang.
When I started working in the early 80’s, we were issued Ford Fairmonts with 2.3 I4 with manual transmissions as pool cars. Compared to most American cars at that time, they handled well and had the best A/C’s. However, the interiors were so plain and dull. When it came time for me to buy my first car on my own, the Mustang was stricken off the list. Other than a tachometer, the interior was identical to the Fairmonts. I felt that I was short changing myself if a bought a Mustang.
+1
I positively hated the interior of my 1979 Fairmont. The flat plain park bench seat offered zero support and was a rear end killer. My dad used to bring a pillow with him if a long trip was forthcoming. It was very rattly and cheap, the dash vibrated going 55 – 60 MPH, also noted by Consumer Guide Auto test for 1978-80, was extremely noisy on the highway with probably zero sound insulation and the instrument cluster was mostly idiot lights. Add to that the dumb stalk mounted horn, the very shallow trunk and the dime thickness sized window glass that shattered if you so much as sneezed and it made for a very cheaply constructed car. The steering was one of it’s main redeeming qualities and I think the Mustang version handles pretty well for the time.
” The Mustang would consistently outsell its GM competition even with the introduction of the new Camaro/Firebird/Trans Am in 1983.”
Not true. The 3rd generation Camaro outsold the fox Mustang for several years specifically 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1991.
Regardless of the fact that a 302 displaces 4.9L, the car was marketed as a 5.0L, was badged as a 5.0L and is known as a 5.0L. This wasn’t the first time a manufactured fibbed about an engines displacement. Chevrolet did the same thing in 1970, calling car’s SS396 when they actually had 402 cid V8’s. Nobody calls these cars SS402’s to correct Chevrolet.
I think these early Foxes are the best-looking with the egg crate grille and segmented taillights. I saw a few in Mexico and discussed them here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1979-1982-ford-mustang-a-clean-break/
I agree fully! I love the look of the 79-82 fox body.. the grill, the c-pillar louvers, and especially the taillights!! Absolutely beautiful!
These early Fox bodied Mustangs are most interesting when you think of how Ford really improved the cars over the years. This was like pushing the restart button on the Mustang Story. These appeared fresh and clean and modern. My brother had a Mustang II Ghia and it was plush but slow with the I4 and 4 speed. More of a shrunken T Bird. I test drove a turbo pace car and it seemed much more modern and more in keeping with the Mustang legacy. I especially like the last of the Fox GTs with the blunt front end, ground effects and cheesegrater tail lights. They were fast too! I wanted one but found that they were beginning to cost more that I could afford for a nice example. I had not liked the SN95, I thought that it had no Mustang DNA. I ended up with a ’96 GT convertible which I’ve really come to appreciate over my five years of ownership. Now I see it as a true Mustang. Ditto on the ’07 that I have. In my opinion the new Mustang is simply the best Mustang ever!
The Mitsubishi Galant Lambda (Dodge Challenger/Plymouth Supporo) predates the Fox Mustang by 3 years.
When the Fox Mustang was new, I lamented the fact that it had no “heritage” cues. But now I miss the daring Ford had back then for a clean break.
It’s hard to imagine Ford doing this again now … introducing a “clean break” Mustang. Like Porsche with its 911 and Harley with its Sportster and Electra-Glide, Ford is trapped by “heritage.”
Ford must have changed the type of plastic used on those “turbine spoke” wheel covers for all of them to still be on this car. A coworker had a 79, and two or three of those wheelcovers had cracked and fallen off before the 12 month warranty was out on the car. The dealer replaced them under the warranty, but Gary was concerned whether they were going to keep shedding at that rate as out of warranty replacements cost 70 Carterbux each. Ultimately, he never learned the answer as he soon tired of the poor pedal location, miserable running 302 and some other issues, and the Stang was gone in 80.
iirc the 255 V8 achieved the improbable: dramatically less power than the 302, with about the same fuel consumption.
I preferred the Capri styling. First, the hatchback roofline flowed better, and I preferred the Capri’s different grill, taillights and the plastic vent effect on the C pillar. The bubbled rear window introduced in later years imho, destroyed the lines of the car.
I had the pretty common full wheel covers on my 1979 Fairmont. They too would routinely fly off if a raillroad track was taken at anything above 5 MPH or a corner taken at more than 10 MPH. I think I just left them off towards the end.
Maybe your co-worker had a bad batch? We had the same “turbine spoke” wheel covers on my family’s ’79 Fairmont, and all 4 were still present and accounted for in ’88 when it was traded on an Escort. Dad bought the car used in (I think) ’83, so they could have been replacements, but they got it right at some point. I remember seeing them on a *lot* of Fairmonts and Mustangs in the 80’s also.
Dad bought the car used in (I think) ’83, so they could have been replacements,
Could be. Ford did fix a few things on the Fairmont family over the years, like the laffably rigid windshield wipers on my 78 Z7, which was corrected a few years later. They could have improved the wheel covers. My Z7 had the less spiffy looking, but stamped aluminum, rather than plastic, covers and mine stayed on.
I think someone else mentioned the horribly shallow trunk. I noticed that too on my 78. When my dad died, I inherited his Fairmont Futura, which was an 82 or 83. Besides a couple joints in the windshield wipers so they would follow the windshield contour, the formerly flat trunk floor was dished an inch or two to give a bit more room.
Wow, so many comments and diverse opinions here. But I have a question that I haven’t really seen explicitly discussed: was the Fox platform architected and engineered for the Mustang as well as the Fairmont/Zephyrnor was the Fox-stang added in development? For what it’s worth, I spent a day in the test labs at Dearborn in December 1976 and saw lots of Fox protos; I was enough of a car guy to recognize that I was seeing something new for Detroit, an RWD sedan with rack and pinion steering and strut front and coil rear live axle. Obviously this was a long time ago, but I’m sure I’d remember if I had seen any Mustang-ish variants of the car, in the labs. When the Fairmont came out later in ’77 I said, OK, that’s the car I saw at Ford, but the Fox Mustang seemed all-new a year later. Over the years I’ve driven at least four Fox Mustangs; the early Turbo 4 and ’87 5.0 GT 5 speed were memorable, the ’86 GT was quite pleasant, but the straight-six automatic rental with white walls, which I had in Seattle once (maybe it was even a Capri) was pretty lame.
Those specific characteristics were tailored for the Mustang primarily, in the book, Ford Mustang 40 Years of Fun, the 1979 chapter discusses how the fox chassis was tailored to be sporty for the Mustang, and that the Fairmont and any other model based on it would in effect benefit from it. Many of the Prototype photos date back to 1976 as well, but the design clearly wasn’t finalized by then, it looked like a squared off Mustang II in March of 76
They were developed in tandem; Iacocca green lighted development of the platform in December 1974. Gordon Riggs, then planning manager for small and mid size platforms stated “We said, ok, we’re going to have a series of cars off 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 of it. It was not planned just for the Mustang, but the whole platform was designed to accommodate it.”
Thanks guys. I wonder if the Ford guys were more careful about keeping the wraps on the Mustang protos than on the sedan protos. I was there for a full day of interviews as a new grad ME; Fox prototypes notwithstanding, the general malaise not to mention December in Detroit was just too much for me and I turned down their subsequent offer, to stay in my native California.
These cars were a big hit, even here in import-crazy California. Three coworkers in my department bought them. One notchback V-8, a notchback turbo and a fastback Capri turbo. I bucked the trend with a Fiesta.
The only issues I remember with the turbo cars were related to underhood heat, mostly early battery failures. I went on a ski trip to Mammoth in the turbo Mustang. The turbo was amazing at altitude, where contemporary low compression carburated cars were dogs.
What a lot of comments!
I was in my early twenties when these came out. While the Mustang II had looked like a caricature, a bad joke, a grandpa car, this design really spoke my language. It looked like Ford US had turned the corner and gotten serious about cars once again. I especially loved the look of the black one with those neon green stripes and graphics.
If these had been sold in Australia, I might even have bought one. But I had to make do. Considering that engines lagged behind styling, that may have been just as well.
It’s been six years since this post first ran. The Fox Mustang is now considered a solid and desirable collectible. An intact, original survivor is about as rare as an original early Acura Integra. It looks like most of these old Mustangs were beat to Hell, and butchered by their owners. A lot of the early Fox cars were base four cylinder powered, but as was explained, fuel economy was of primary importance. Many of these four cylinder cars haven’t survived.
What’s interesting about the Fox Mustang was that it was a real continuation of the Mustang concept, but not the Mustang design. A small sporty car that could be optioned to the buyer’s taste. The SN 95 years brought back some of the heritage design cues, which of course was even more evident with the early 2005-2009 models.
The Mustang has just gotten bigger over the years. I keep my ’96 and my “06 in the garage next to each other. While I don’t think that the ’06 looks especially big standing alone, next to my ’96, it does seem a bit porky, maybe that’s a harsh word, perhaps zaftig, is a better term, or maybe just Va Va Voooom! The ’06 strikes me as just the perfect combination of heritage design cues with modern design. The latest generation of Mustang seems even bigger. Next year Ford is trimming the tail, at least it looks that way.
Many 4 banger Fox-Stangs have been upgraded to V8 drag racers/project cars. Back in late 90’s/early 00’s, a Mustang shop would seek out base models and sell cheap to fans to build their own. The faded red notchback above would get lots of potential buyers to fix up.
I do like seeing “4 eyed” pre-’87 models, or Capris, modified, with the Fairmont dash, for a change from common aero look models.
Kudos to Iacocca for the Mustang II, for it kept the brand alive, yet Lee also deserves kudos for launching the Fox Mustang, which saved the brand for a generation. In many ways, this was the best Mustang because it was based on an honest, solid car for the first time. A car that was actually created via CAD/CAM and designed like a car should have been.
The original Mustang was a Falcon, the next generation was a Torino-ish thing, the Mustang II was a Pinto-ish thing, but the 1979 Mustang was a solid car – the Fox. Donald Peterson also gets thanks for bringing the sporty back in the Mustang. Finally Jack Telnack made the car look good without any Mustang cliches that were expected amonght Mustang fanatics. GM failed to do the same with the Camaro – and only evolved the bulbous 1970 classic, but Telnack threw away the mold and started fresh.
The Fairmont was the moment when Ford woke up and started moving beyond Brougham and Bordellos. Roomier than a Torino, the Fairmonts showed the world that Ford could make an honest car. Using it as a base for the Mustang was a sweet decision.
The Mustang name is valuable. It was good to see Ford invest in it with this car.
Well! Seeing one of my old writings rerun really made me happy. Thanks so much! I do miss writing for the site.