Not original SVO wheels.
(first posted 7/18/2013) For Ford, the eighties was the most miraculous decade for any American automaker since Chrysler’s first magic ten years (1924-1933). After nearly going bankrupt in 1981 trying to prolong the Great Brougham Epoch for way too long, Ford arose from the ashes of vinyl-topped barges with a fervor and spirit of innovation unheard of in the industry, except perhaps AMC’s final years. It was all thanks to the first leadership team without the surname Ford: recently-deceased Philip Caldwell (CEO, Chairman) and Donald Petersen (President and CEO/Chairman after Caldwell’s retirement in 1985).
Although the Taurus was the greatest commercial success that arose from their tenure, the Mustang SVO–despite being a commercial flop–perhaps best epitomizes the risk-taking spirit of Ford at the time. The whole notion of creating an über-Mustang with a turbocharged four cylinder Pinto engine was counter-intuitive, but the SVO has become a living legend and a testament to Ford’s golden decade.
Admittedly, Ford’s renaissance started a few years before its near-collapse, with the all-new 1978 Fairmont and the 1979 Mustang, which shared its Fox platform. The Fairmont (CC here) was unusual for being so straight-forward and un-Broughamy for a Ford in the seventies, and became the platform upon which that Ford pinned its survival on, at least until the FWD Taurus and Tempo came on line.
The first few years of the new Mustang were a bit shaky, literally and metaphorically. It’s birth and childhood we’ll cover another time, but one of the more unique aspects was the option of a turbo four. But Ford’s first shot at this was a dud, utilizing a carburetor and primitive boost control. It left a bad taste in those who were tempted by its Day-Glo graphics.
By 1982, the Mustang found its traditional legs again in the form of the GT, with a revived 302, packing 157 hp in its first year, and 175 the next. It was the best performance deal in the land, and put the Mustang back in the winner’s circle. But it was still riding on a lot of Fairmont under the skin, which meant the Mustang was reasonably capable, but hardly a world-class handler.
Donald Petersen was soft-spoken but a real car guy, and spent time at Bob Bondurant’s racing school honing his skills behind the wheel of a Mustang GT. I’m not sure where and how exactly the idea of the SVO first originated, but I’d like to think the seed was planted during those track days as Petersen wrestled his GT through the turns. Of course, Bondurant’s fleet of GTs had some special preparation, and perhaps that helped spark what became Ford’s high performance skunk works, the Special Vehicle Operations unit, which of course was the source of the SVO’s name.
The SVO arrived to considerable accolades in 1984, sporting an intercooled version of the completely revised 2.3 Turbo four that first appeared in the 1983 T-Bird Turbo Coupe (CC here). This engine was a pioneer in the use of Ford’s new EEC-IV engine management system, and except for its propensity for NVH, was state of the art. The addition of the intercooler boosted power to 175 hp @ 4400 rpm, and torque to 210 lb ft @3000rpm. Power was (literally) boosted to 205 hp for the 1985.5 version, and 200 hp for the 1986. Please note that 4400 rpm power peak; there are still folks out there who think small turbo engines need to rev like mad to make power. The opposite is the case, actually; turbos invariably make their power at lower peak rpm than comparable normally-aspirated ones.
The SVO got a completely new aero front clip, and was all set to use flush headlights, but federal regulations were not updated quickly enough, and the resulting front end is rather unfortunate.
That finally was fixed for the 1985.5 revision. The featured CC is also not wearing the original 16″ SVO alloy wheels, which were very handsome and really helped make the SVO look distinctive.
The decision to use the turbo four to create what was somewhat comparable to the original Shelby Mustang GT350 is a controversial one, given the 302’s potential. But the decision to create the SVO was made right around the time of the all-time highest energy prices, and Ford was pinning a lot on the premise of downsized and turbocharged engines; Eco Boost V1.0.
And as this picture makes clear, the little four tucked up against the firewall made for near-perfect weight distribution, which reinforced the focus to make the SVO more of an all-out handler rather than the ultimate straight-line machine. To that end, the SVO received major suspension modifications, including a re-engineered suspension featuring adjustable Koni shocks, revised front geometry, faster steering ratio, five-lug hubs, top-line performance tires, rear disc brakes, and “Quadra Shock” rear suspension with horizontal shocks on the rear axle to tame its unruly ways, as GT drivers were all-too-familiar with.
The result was a superb handler, one Road&Track called “perhaps the best all-round car for the enthusiast driver ever produced by the U.S. industry…Given the existing Mustang platform, the Ford SVO team could hardly have done a better job of improving [it] to world-class GT standards. “. Performance in a straight line was brisk for the times, with 0-60 coming in a tick over seven seconds, and the 1/4 mile in about 16 seconds. The later versions improved upon that.
And if that wasn’t fast enough, the 2.3 Turbo four’s output is very readily boosted further, and 400-450 hp (or more) are just a few mods away (bigger injectors, more boost). That’s one of the more obvious reasons this engine has developed such a cult following.
The SVO’s interior, available only in business-like gray came in cloth or leather, and included a specially-positioned brake pedal to facilitate heel-and-toe shifting, as well as footrest. This particular car came with the Comp-Prep option, which deleted the radio, power windows, A/C and a few other amenities for weight reduction. The standard SVO already was a sub-3000 lbs car (listed at 2,992 lbs), so these were light-weights in the best sense of the term.
Enough for the good stuff. The SVO’s downside was its over-boosted price, which at $16,000 ($35k adjusted) represented a mammoth 60% premium over a GT. No Sale. Well, some 9,844 SVOs were sold over its three-year run, but undoubtedly the program was a bit of a disappointment. But Ford learned from the lesson, and the SVO did pave the way for numerous future higher-performance Mustang derivatives, all with V8s and generally priced at more reasonable premiums.
But the SVO is a testament to the leadership of Caldwell (left) and Petersen in showing the world that Ford could build a sophisticated world-class GT that also wasn’t fragile. Caldwell originated Ford’s “Quality is Job #1″ program, and during the eighties, Ford really did make great strides given from what a low level they were coming from.
Caldwell’s famous quote ” We may go out of business. I hope we don’t, but if we do I want people to say ‘What a shame! They were building the best cars and trucks in the world'” is a bit ironic in the case of the SVO, given its commercial failure. But it did burnish Ford’s reputation in a number of ways; it was an exercise well worth the effort, given the halo effect. And the SVO did live up to Caldwell’s expectations in being world-class.
The SVO enjoys a cult following today, but they’re hardly commonplace on the streets. This is the first one I’ve encountered since starting the great CC Treasure Hunt. I was very attracted to the SVO in its day; it was exactly along my own ideal of the cross of American and European approaches to a sporting GT. The high tech engine and superb handling sang to me, even if the coarse sounds of its engine above 4ooo rpm didn’t. I could have seen myself behind the wheel of an SVO; I still could.
Sorry as a Mustang fan I wouldn’t go near it.Any small displacement turbo engine this old will have had more hammer than a blind cobbler’s thumb!A 302 or a 6 in this body style is a different matter, I would be tempted
On a B road in the V8 Gem hatchbacks will blow the doors off it, only quick in a straight line
You’re right but I still want a Mustang,always did since seeing Bulllitt.
I saw a lovely 68 Stang today I would have shot it for the cohort but was busy driving rego plate was 4D ICON its local so I’ll shoot it for ya next time I see it.
Thank you
Nice article. I’ve seen one or two SVOs at car shows over the years and maybe one on the road, Turbo Coupe T-birds however have been a much more common sight in my life.
Caldwell’s famous quote ” We may go out of business. I hope we don’t, but if we do do I want people to say ‘What a shame! They were building the best cars and trucks in the world’” – That quote should be on the mind of every member of management of every car company every day.
Every company period.
Great handling car by US standards I bet it was, no gargantuan weight over the front axle good low down pull no need to rev the snot out of it like a Jappa it should have been good, Ive only seen V8s and they are not great around corners there is an ex highway patrol mustang here bought for use as a pace car except it was too slow and could not corner until the suspension was sorted now it goes around corners at speed instead of going sideways and being horribly slow.
I understand that for a premium priced car like the SVO it is important to have some unique styling features to show off what you’ve got…but in retrospect I think the GT is a much better looking car. The SVO looks so stubby. Ford has to be given credit for what they did in the ’80s especially coming off of the luxo-barges they were building in the “70s.
Having been 15 years old and learning to drive after a car-obsessed childhood when the Mustang SVO came out, I was greatly impressed by these cars when they were new and still find them impressive almost 30 years later. The turbocharged Mustang SVO and the first-generation aero Taurus announced that an American car company could compete head to head with foreign technological leaders such as Audi, after the long moribund Brougham/smog control era of the 1970s. That was my impression as a teenager, and reading the words ”We may go out of business. I hope we don’t, but if we do I want people to say ‘What a shame! They were building the best cars and trucks in the world’” for the first time, reinforces that my teenage impression was on the mark.
As an adult who has had to crawl under the hood many times, a simple 302 V8 would seem a safer choice in an older classic car, but the vast amount of space around the SVO’s turbo four in that engine compartment photo makes me think that the SVO may have one of the easier turbo engines to work on. It looks far more accessible than the shoehorned turbo inline 5 of an Audi that I owned.
‘“Quadra Shock” rear suspension with horizontal shocks on the rear axle to tame its unruly ways…’
I’m having trouble imagining how this worked.
Im wondering if that was the nightmare handling problem that ex police one came with it just went sideways under power in a turn and thats not fast and it was an ex highway patrol car not some beater from a wrecking yard.
The horizontal shocks were put in place of solid lower control arms, so instead of a lower trailing link you had two “shocks” locating the rear axle.
Interesting, thanks.
No the lower control arms were not removed or changed the second shocks were added up top. That allowed them to retain the soft bushings in the control arms to keep a reasonable ride but stop the wheel hop associated with them. They were also used on the GT.
My bad, sorry.
I helped a cousin put an eibach setup in his 87 GT and my memory was obviously too fuzzy to get it right.
Def a strange setup, and not the best way to locate that rear axle.
I rememeber his going from hooking up pretty hard to more or less just frying the tires all the time. It actually seemed to ride better with the sport springs, but the body flex was made much more apparent
The quad shocks don’t locate the axle, they simply dampen the movement of it under hard acceleration or braking. The Fox’s basic rear suspension layout is a simple 4 link setup with angled control arms to locate it(essentially the same design as RWD GM A bodies)
The 83 Thunderbird Turbocoupe was the first user of the quad shocks I believe.
I’m sure that XR7Matt meant to say “they simply damp the movement”, i.e., attenuate the live axel’s propensity to wheel hop. Wetting the axle wouldn’t have much effect on the car’s behavior.
Eric – spot on description. What (little) power the smogged out 302 ’79 GT’s had, would produce an ungodly amount to wheel hop, hence when FoMoCo got a green light to goose up power starting in ’82, the horizontal shocks came into play. Turbo T-birds had ’em too.
I think the “vibration damper” was set really stiff…
Diagram in the link..
https://www.formust.com/link_stabilizer_bar-297.html
I like the “EcoBoost v1.0” monicker, rather than focusing on the Mustang SVO’s commercial failure; I can’t help but believe that the SVO team got some invaluable experience with turbos and handling, and that we’re reaping the benefits today.
Paul, could you please explain “its near-collapse with the 1978 Fairmont?” I thought the Fairmont’s first-year sales nearly met or exceeded that of the Mustang’s debut year. But I could be – and sometimes am – wrong… 🙂
In the 80s Ford UK had Cosworth engineering building its turbo race motors far more would have been learned there than from this car the Sierra Cosworth was THE fastest Ford you could get anywhere much faster than this mustang could dream of being
They were a magnet for car thieves in the UK,insurance was through the roof.It was also a favourite get a way car for crooks
They raced them in OZ with much success but you couldnt buy one in NZ you could buy one but not cheaply, M3s failed to beat Sierras on race tracks but then M3s cant really catch much at all in reality but that turbo tech is in the ecoboost Fords of today.
Gee, KiwiBryce . . . if it doesn’t have some kind of Anglo connection to it, it automatically must be some POS, right? California Highway Patrol used Mustang LX’s w/302’s as high speed pursuit vehicles for a reason. Certainly wouldn’t run out of breath like a Cosworth bouncing across rutted sheep trails.
Last I knew, some of the world’s biggest carmakers still had their headquarters in North America, Detroit, Dearborn and Auburn Hills Michigan, I believe . . . .
The Florida Highway Patrol was also a huge customers for 302 Mustangs in both full-dress and unmarked forms.
I’m in Britain. I actually have a ’87 Mustang GT, because I happen to like them. But even so it’s not in the same league as a cosworth. Those things were de-tuned road legal race cars, by no measure were they mass market pony cars. The mustang is a straight line road burner and that’s pretty much it. The ease with which the rear end loses traction on corners is just hilarious. It’s really not comparing like with like.
Our police used Cosworths as high speed pursuit cars. There was no point running.
I’m waiting for KiwiBryce to dis the new Corvette saying it doesn’t and can’t handle or perform as well as his ’61 Hillman Minx with a Rolls-Royce turbofan jet engine, gyroscopic stabilizers and a portrait of the Queen on the dashboard!
Perhaps that sentence wasn’t clear to you.
Ford’s renaissance started a few years before its near-collapse with the 1978 Fairmont…
Ford’s renaissance, from its near-collapse, started with the 1978 Fairmont.
Yes, poor sentence structure; my bad. I’ll fix it.
I like the “EcoBoost 1.0” as well, but I guess it would in actuality be “1.1” since it was an upgrade over the original non-intercooled, non-water-jacketed 2.3 I had in my ’80 Mustang…which grenaded after a bit over 60K miles.
You got 60K out yours? Fantastic! I wish mine would have gone beyond 40K…
Well done, Paul and a thank you for finally finding an SVO. My favorite Mustang. The flaws of the carburated 79-80 Turbo 4 finally solved with EEC-IV engine controls and EFI with intercooling. I still have my Road and Track 1984 issue with a Canyon Red SVO with all 4 tires off the ground. It’s a car I too, would one day love to own. It has gained much respect now then when it was sitting in showrooms.
Prior to that Road and Track road test, I recall an issue around 1982 that reported on the genesis of the SVO, racing in the 24 hours of Nelson Ledges. That valued input in addition to what the Zakspeed Mustang IMSA racer was providing with turbocharged and intercooling power helped shape the Mustang SVO into what it became.
There’s an interesting clip floating around You Tube of Michael Kranefuss being interviewed in 1984, with a Mustang SVO as a focal point. For the small budget Kranefuss was given, he and his staff created a car that should have the cachet of the early Shelby Mustangs in what they represented. I think in time, the SVO has earned that respect.
The Ford Motor Company with Phillip Caldwell and later, Donald Petersen was on a roll. The Turbo T Bird Coupe, Mustang SVO, Bronco II, Tempo/Topaz and Taurus were the fruits of their labor. Red Poling and later, Jacques Nasser; 2 non-car enthusiasts, nearly killed the company with their greed during the SUV craze. I miss the likes of Caldwell, Petersen, Kranefuss and Telnack. Car guys rule and the cars they create become immortal in car fandom. Bean counters see the fruits of their labors being the focus of lawsuits and the poster boy for Cash for Clunkers.
You forget to mention the guy between Poling and Nasser, the guy that really fucked-up the company, promoted Nasser-idiot, and set it up for its latest near-death-experience: Alex Trotman (6 billion bucks for the CDW-27/mondeo/contour/mystique turds?)
I went to church with Alan Smith, the english former Formula-B racer, brought over from Zackspeed Germany to run the US IMSA effort. As I recall, dimly, there may be truth to what you say about an IMSA – SVO link.
My buddy and I went down to the Ford dealer on Grand River near Middlebelt and took an SVO for a test drive, he was all hot over it, so we went there. Most memorable aspect? The seats with their big side bolsters.
Word in the ford community within DPTC was that the sealed beam headlamps were Plan B, forced by the inability of manufacturing (I think Sandusky Plastics Plant) to launch on time a lamp that didn’t fog internally due to moisture ingress.
Great write-up Paul, I couldn’t have written a better tribute to Caldwell than you did here. And very much along the lines of what I had in mind if I would have tried.
“a lamp that didn’t fog internally due to moisture ingress.”
Funny, I think that was the original gov’t rationale for sealed beams. Anyway, I don’t think they were such a bad idea: cheaper than factory lenses, & no worries about sun damage, either. They just didn’t look Euro-cool, that’s all.
The Aero lamps were not legal in the US when the SVO was dreamed up. Plus I think Ford wanted to let the Mark VII have that exclusivity for a little while.
Here is that 1984 segment on SVO and Michael Kranefuss. Included are scenes of the Mustang GTP IMSA racer at speed and at rest. 600 hp out of 2.1 liters and as Kranefuss points out, with the ability for more power. I come away more impressed with what Ford was doing in these days…..these were real car men running the show. You Tube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QdxZ5XZ_UM
Equally inspired was the later work of John Coletti at SVO’s successor, SVT. Coletti was responsible for the Mustang Cobra with the supercharged V-8’s, independent rear suspension, the Mustang Cobra R and his swan song master piece, the Ford GT.
Mr. Notigan, here’s another sample of SVO I found about two months ago. It’s an ’84 to ‘85.5 given the lack of third brake light.
Jason, that’s a nice catch. I see many for sale on Craigs List and a good showing comes up on Ebay. However, to spot one on the road is a rare find these days.
The Fairmont was a vital product for Ford in that it clearly introduced an entirely new way for Ford to create vehicles. As was the great music of that era, the Fairmont was the “punk rocker” of Ford machines. The Fairmont was stripped of all useless styling effects and emphasized a functional layout. The car did nothing fancy. It was not front wheel drive. It did not try to introduce a new engine. It had no gimmicks that Ford used previously. Like the punk rockers of that era, the Fairmont returned Ford to the basic functional roots and purpose of auto making.
Once Ford demonstrated its ability to produce a solid functional machine that didn’t need to hide behind crushed velour, padded vinyl, opera lights and windows and other 1960s-1970s style gimmicks, the market recognized a new Ford. Just as rock shifted from the Broughamified stylings of Supertramp, Reo Speedwagon and Air Supply to X, Gang of Four and The Clash.
The Fox body vehicles were vital to Ford’s image in the market. After a generation of Fox bodied vehicles showing a newer Ford way of doing things, the market was ready to embrace the Tempo, Taurus, Sable, Thunderbird and Cougar in their new aerodynamic jelly-bean shapes.
Perhaps Ford could have jumped right from a family of Broughamified vehicles into the Tempo and Taurus with some success, however it was the simple honesty of the Fox bodied line of Ford products that demonstrated that Ford was dedicated to producing an entirely different kind of vehicle and prepared the market to accept the Tempo and Taurus.
The Fox cars were “The Once Over Twice” to the Taurus’ “Burning Down The House”.
The simplicity and simple styling geometries used were also much related to the regulatory demands and changes in product design methodology happening at the same time. Instead of armies of body engineers drawing full scale prints in enormous rooms on top of enormous tables, Ford was moving to PDGS, an in-house CAD product. Given the limitations in both software and computer processor power, super complex sheet metal geometries were not desired. The curvy nature of the Tempo, Aerobird, and Taurus demonstrate the rapid improvement in CAD design tools in that 10 year period.
I’m not sure Ford could have made the jump from Überbrogham to Jellybean you contemplate given the regulatory, economic, personnel, and technological constraints of the day.
Funny thing about Fox, it was supposed to be Ford NAAO’s first “all metric” designed vehicle… At least that was what was said publicly… The rear axles in thoses vehicles “don’t speak no metric”!
Well it isn’t like the “boxy” or linear style wasn’t in fashion at the time the Fairmont was introduced. Sure it helped that it was easier to design, tool and produce.
Domestic car design was moving towards the “boxy” style by the mid-1970s, thanks to the influence of the Mercedes-Benz and, ironically enough, the “formal” look of the front ends of early 1970s Lincolns.
The overall shape of the Fox-body Fairmont therefore wasn’t that much of shock when it debuted. What was out of the ordinary for the industry in general, and Ford in particular, was the restrained use of exterior trim and the simple grille and taillights.
Downsizing also brought a push for greater packaging efficiency, which is not an area where swoopy rooflines and lots of tumblehome are particularly helpful. The big domestics of the late ’60s and early ’70s were not necessarily very roomy despite their tremendous bulk.
Maybe insiders could tell us, but I don’t know how the Fairmont could’ve arisen in Ford’s biz culture, it was such an aberration. Ford has pulled the hat trick just often enough to stay alive all these years.
Re metric, Ford *was* a little doubleminded here; I still have the 10mm wrench I got for my ’81 Escort, despite its other bolts being SAE. Now I use it on my Civic’s battery bracket.
GM did metric/English mix up too. My 1982 Chevy Celebrity had a mixture of metric/English nuts and bolts, much to my father’s frustration. He finally went out and bought his first set of metric tools in response to that car.
I could understand with the J-body, being an international platform like the Escort was, but the Celebrity is more puzzling. Maybe it’s an insidious corporate conspiracy with Snap-On or Sears.☺
Don’t know if it’s true, but someone told me only a small wrench set is needed to work on BMWs.
First NAAO Escort, despite starting out based on the EAO Escort had about 12 parts in common between them.
GM went to all-metric fasteners on their downsized cars in 1977 on anything that was newly designed (including drivetrain components such as the THM200 with ‘METRIC’ stamped right into the pan on the bottom). Any legacy components, be they either existing body styles (such as the pickup/blazer/suburban) or drivetrain, kept with their original fasteners.
This mix of metric and standard fasteners continued for decades! Last summer I did a lot of work on my neighbor’s 1997 GMC Safari minivan. The 4.3l engine has both standard fasteners (such as the 1/4″-20 bolts holding the spark plug wire holders to the heads) and metric ones (M6 on the top of the intake for throttle cable & coil brackets into the intake manifold).
I remember in the fall of 1975 when GM (Chevrolet) launched the Chevette, it was lauded as being the first American vehicle to use all metric tooling. I also remember being in high school during the mid 70’s that America was (supposed to) go “all metric” by the Bicentennial year of 1976 . . . .
Hey! Come on! Supertramp rocks!
I bought Breakfast in America off iTunes last week…
I went to HS with one of the guitarists.
Sure, the new Euro, Aero, and sporty cars helped turn Ford around in the 80’s
But also, Crown Vic sales took off in 1983 after older buyers got used to its size. So, old ‘broughams’ also helped pay bills then, too.
The Panther-platform Fords were also helped by GM killing off the rear-wheel-drive Oldsmobile and Buick full-size cars, and the terrible engines Cadillac used for several years beginning in 1981.
I recall reading an article about Ford around 1987 in one of the business publications. It claimed that the company had managed to initially break even on the Taurus/Sable. The vehicles that were really raking in the dollars for the corporation were the trucks and the Panther-platform cars, particularly the Lincoln Town Car.
I admired these great leaders as well as the Fox Fairmont, Mustang, Tbird and the effort on the SVO powertrain. But contrary to popular belief management back then wasn’t green lighting every hi-po program. The LSC version of the Mark VII, for example, was a real fight.
Management was leery of the hot-rod Lincoln concept. So the guys on the development team worked with the auto journalists (Csere to be specific) and had prototypes featured in Car and Driver. The reaction was extremely positive and the team convinced management to give it a shot. The guys at the top were good but so were the guys in the trenches.
Ford was great at working with the buff books that way. To read the reviews of the Turbo 4 you would think it was the second coming. My expectations were sky high and it didn’t take much more than two minute test drive to understand its Achilles’ heel, NVH. People talk about the high price and peaky nature of the engine being a drawback but for me first and foremost it was the really bad NVH.
What hurt the SVO was that it competed on the showroom floor with the Mustang GT which was as quick/quicker and about $4-6K less. Only the gearheads (like me) knew how special the SVO was . . .
The same handicap affected L-M dealers with the Versailles sharing showroom floor space with Mercury Monarchs. Joe Average didn’t know the Versailles had all these special amenities and build quality (insulated accelerator cables to hush noise; America’s first clear-coat painted car, ditto halogen headlamps, gas filled shock absorbers, extra Q/A inspectors and that each Versailles was individually road tested before being OK’d for delivery).
I don’t think the Versailles would have been more popular if the public perfectly understood that the price increase over a Monarch Ghia was for $4K of Turd Polish.
In 1981 I purchased a Mercury Capri RS turbo, not unlike the Mustang featured at the top of the post. Initially, a great car, but the cheapness engineered into the car soon let me down. I was angry (with FoMoCo) (and wanted to impress a certain young blonde woman law student) so I sprung for a 1983 Trans Am. Initially, a great car, but the cheapness engineered into the car…
In 1986, my wife (NOT the law student, that worked out as well as the Trans Am did) and I decided it was time for me to get my (first ever and since) new car. I was nuts about the SVO, had read every word published about it, knew the specs. Could not find one until I got to Cleveland or Pittsburgh and then the dealers were very aware of the car’s reputation.
By some fluke, the neighboring town’s Ford dealer had one on the lot in September of 1986. I thought with it being the end of the year, this guy will want to get it off of his lot. That was how I got my Capri RS turbo. No such deal. I got to test drive the car (fun!) but then I got into “death-spiral” price negotiations (not fun!), the kind that end with after four hours, neither party getting near anything they wanted out of the exchange.
At the beginning the salesman announced that an offer at $16K (list price, essentially) would be the only way to start negotiations. l reminded him I could get a supremely loaded Mustang GT for $12K, and I could buy an IROC Z Camaro (with a 350!) for $14K (IIRC) and smoke that SVO. They were not moved. I really, really, really wanted that car. I was so nuts about it, that if they would have come down to $15,999.99 I would have signed the papers and given them my first born. No deal.
As I left that Ford dealership, I saw a car hauler full of new Mercurys. On it was to become my third Capri, a 5.0L Sport Coupe. I followed that hauler to the Mercury dealership and bought the car even before it came off of the trailer. And I got it well under dealer list for the car. I later found out the car was forced on them by the factory, apparently they weren’t selling enough “youth” and “sporty” cars.
(Who knew I was helping them out? Not me…) The fact that the Mercury line up in those days had at best, three cars kind of aimed at younger buyers (Lynx, Cougar and Capri) with no performance reputation, or the fact that the hideously overpriced Merkur line couldn’t have had more f*cked up marketing and promotions didn’t count. These guys were getting fat selling all of the Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Cars Ford could push out. Once I got in the car selling game I understood and felt bad for these guys. I shouldn’t have, they are (probably still) sleeping in beds lined with all of the money they made shifting GrandMas and TC’s… I couldn’t sell enough Camrys to make a dent…
I look at these cars today and think: What could have been if that @sshole at the Ford dealer would have come down $100. By the same token, my life took on a whole different path that really doesn’t allow me to ‘keep’ a car in a pristine condition. I’m not sorry, as I got to experience a lot of great (and shitty) things. Now I think, eh, give me a nice G6 GXP and I’d be happy.
They can keep their SVO. I’m OK with it.
Good story, GeoZinger. In the summer of 1985, I happened to, on a whim visit Serramonte Ford in Daly City, Cal., enticed by a newspaper ad on a “Mustang blowout sale” (including ANY SVO in stock!). Suffice to say, they had a buttload of Mustang GT’s that one could have for the high $12’s . . . . but two SVOs that were marked up and they wouldn’t negotiate on. Too bad . . . . I didn’t buy any Mustang that day as I looked at the SVO after driving a GT and suddenly they got all snotty like they were selling a Bentley . . . .
I think one of the biggest regrets of the SVO Mustang program is that they didn’t apply a lot of the chassis and interior changes to the regular GT. An SVO with a 302 wouldn’t have been as nimble as the 2.3 turbo just because of the extra front-end weight, but it’s not like the 302 was a monstrously heavy engine — what is it, a bit under 500 lb depending on which version you’re talking about? — and the V-8 cars could have used stuff like the four-wheel discs. What would have been desirable would have been to have kept the basic 5.0 LX for the people who didn’t care about all that cornering stuff or who wanted to build a street racer while giving the GT the SVO’s chassis and letting buyers decide if they preferred the nimbler but noisier turbo or V-8 torque. (If dealers were concerned at losing the old, mostly cosmetic GT, they could have basically reinvented it as the LX Sport or something like that.)
Ford would’ve amortized some of the SVO goodies by making them optional on the LX/GT . . . but . . . it’s hindsight (and it also gave the aftermarket guys the impetus to do just that).
I was in the market when these came out, but the SVO was a complete non-starter with me. I came close to pulling the trigger on an 85 Mustang GT, though. First, it was price – that SVO was EXPENSIVE. For a car that handled a little bit better, and was about as fast as the GT, it didn’t seem like it was worth the premium. Particularly when the tradeoff was low-stress rock-simple engine with gobs of torque for a high-strung rough as a cob turbo four. I just saw no reason to go there. Apparently, I was not alone.
Very nice writeup on the car, though. I would still make the same choice today (GT over SVO), but the SVO was certainly an interesting car that showed Ford heading in a new direction.
Owned a 79 Merc Capri RS with the 2.3 turbo & TRX wheels, thought this was the “Bomb” until a year & half later, The turbo failed big time! My future ex-brother in-law had a 79 Stang with the same engine, his turbo failed, and another guy across the island with another Capri turbo that failed. It pissed a lot of owners of these cars that Ford did nothing to replace these units. That experience really soured me about buying anymore Ford products.
Ditto. My first new car was a ’78 turbo TransAm. Complete POS (well, it looked good) that I ditched after 18 months (8 of them back at the dealer as they sorted out engine malfunctions).
In ’80 I got a Capri RS. Loved the way the car drove, but it had a handful of electrical issues and needed constant transmission adjustments. T tops leaked from day 1.
In ’82 I went Japanese and haven’t looked back in my subsequent 4 new car purchases, although my wife’s Edge serves her well except for some cooling issues at 70k.
There were no factory “1978 Turbo Trans Ams”. Only offered in the 2nd gen body in 1980-81, 301 ci.
I remember these SVOs as being a big deal at the time. But like all SVO/SVT products, I don’t think they were ever meant to be a big seller. They were essentially publicity cars meant to show off Ford’s engineering ability and get people excited about the brand.
I really like these and they can still be found for reasonable prices. From what I have read though, maintenance can be a nightmare due to so many specialized parts and so little general knowledge about them.
As a teenager I devoured everything to do with Mustangs, and have always loved the Euro-look of the SVO over the slightly overblown (late-’80s) GTs. They still look great to me.
I had an ’86 that had been souped up. An idiot cousin decided to take it for a joy ride without my permission and promptly wrecked it. Needless to say I was just about ready to make his neck 3 feet longer.
Didn’t these cars come with weird-beird 390mm wheels from the factory?
No, mercifully these used standard 16″ diameter wheels
16″ wheels, usually with Goodyear NCT or Gatorback.
The wheels you are referring to are featured on the Black Cobra pictured above.
My brother has one of these — it’s fun to drive.
Sorry to say, that front end is really hard to get used to. It looks like a piece of cheese that was carved up by different people. I don’t doubt how good the car was, but “ouch” on the front treatment.
They were forced to use sealed beams initially. AFAIR they obtained some kind of special clearance to use aero lights on the ’84 Lincon MK-VII. The other models had to wait.
I read the front plate: “Why is there katakana? Shi-N-Ri?” *Zoom in “OH. SVO!”
(Tell me someone else did this…)
I have to say , if it was a choice between US or European Fords, no contest , Europe wins easily
Why would anyone in Europe want to by a US Ford if that’s what they turned out , if you wanted a fast Ford you would buy an XR3i or XR4i which were affordable, fast , and did go round corners well
I have ridden in an 80s Mustang, but it was so forgettable I cannot recall anything about it
Personal opinion but all of those cars picture and just ugly, very weird lights arrangement on the front, silly bonnet scoops and is there actually any rear seat legroom?
Given that Ford Lincoln Mercury produced some genuinely beautiful looking cars in the 60s those must have come as a disappointment
God intended Mustang engines to have 8 holes. Period.
Get it. For the inlet valves and for the outlet valves.
I actually prefer the recessed sealed beam headlights. Although probably poor for aero, I think they make the car look more aggressive.
It makes me think of what an original Taurus would look like without the composite headlights. It would be interesting to see an 89 SHO done that way. Similar to how people have fitted Euro spec sealed beam assemblies into Corsicas and Berettas. Definitely a more aggressive look.