(First Posted October 12, 2013) Since I’ve started to post here at Curbside Classics, I’ve probably driven by 40 of these ’87 to ’93 Fox body Mustangs, and never even thought about picking up my camera. I drove by this particular one several times, and suddenly thought “This car is the right era, has the right patina, and is an iconic nameplate. Why don’t I think of it as good CC fodder?”
I think one word explains it: Ubiquitous.
Merriam Webster defines ubiquitous thusly:
ubiq·ui·tous- adjective \yü-ˈbi-kwə-təs\: seeming to be seen everywhere.
Since Ford built the Fox body Mustang for fifteen years, and maintained the basic elements of the 1987 restyle up through 1993, we’ve all seen this car. Hell, we’ve probably all rode in one. To us, the upright coupe roofline reads “secretaries car,” and the single bar grill identifes it as an LX.
Overall, very boring. The only way this car becomes interesting is by equipping with the LX 5.0 package. If this car did have the multiport 302 under the hood, I would have written it up months ago, under the heading “Ford’s Highway Patrol Special.”
But no, the single tailpipe identifes this as a 2.3 liter “Lima ” 4-banger. Starting in 1987, the Fox body Mustang came with this boat anchor as the base engine, and the 5.0 liter V-8 as the only available upgrade. I can’t think of any other manufacturer that offered a base engine with less than 50% of the premium motor’s displacement (Suddenly, I hear the CC faithful rushing to their keyboards to try and identify another example).
Having owned a number of Fords with ths engine, I’m not surprised to see this Mustang still on the road; the Lima engine is tough as nails. If my daughter needed a cheap set of wheels, one of these 4 banger Fox bodies would serve her well. With an acquisition cost in the range of $ 1,200-1,500, it’s a tempting equation.
Having owned a couple Fox Body Mustangs (and one Fox body Capri RS), I’m very familiar with the overall package. Ford worked hard to provide flashy looking content on the cheap, as is evidenced by this composite wheel. While it looks like a cast aluminum wheel, it is in fact composed of a steel center hub and outer rim, with the body of the wheel composed of PLASTIC. In fact, you can use your fingers to squeeze those “spokes” together. I did that trick for a used car salesman one day, while he was expounding the wonders of those fine “alloy” wheels. It got him to quiet down for a good two minutes… 
This shot shows another trick Ford used to refresh the look of the Fox body on the cheap. By laying the quarter glass over the top of the existing C pillar opening, they created the appearance of a new and bigger quarter glass, but did not increase the actual window opening. Since glass is (relatively) cheap, and this change eliminated several trim pieces, this new look probably saved Ford a few pennies as they updated the Mustang’s appearance for ’87.
The ’87 refresh also included a new dashboard with Taurus style HVAC controls, and a new gauge binnacle with exterior light switches at your fingertips. The shift lever establishes that this 2.3 LX is an automatic, which makes it darn near undrivable. The Lima engine produced an underwhelming 88 or 90 HP in these cars, and pushing so little power through a slush box turns the impression of acceleration into the delusion of acceleration. The 4 cylinder also came with the Borg Warner T5 transmission (just like the 5.0 GT), so manual fans could at least row the stick to control power output. Automatic drivers? Condemned to the slow lane.
The interior picture also narrows down the model year- Fox bodies came with a driver’s side air bag starting in ’90 (and lost the tilt wheel option), so this beauty is a MY ’87 to ’89.
By now you’re thinking “Gee, Dave, this is all very interesting and all, but where’s the dirty little secret?
How about this- Despite all the terrible things enthusiasts say about the 2.3 Lima engine, Mustang buyers bought them, and bought a lot of them.
Here are the 4 cylinder production numbers for the years 1987 to 1993 (as a percent of total Mustang sales):
’87- 63.5% (!) ’88- 49.6% ’89- 48.7% ’90- 36.4% ’91- 37.0% ’92- 49.6% ’93- 57.6%
We’ve all heard the phrase “I can’t believe Ford didn’t offer a V-6 in the Fox body for seven years.” My response- Believe it! Four cylinders were typically 50% of total Mustang sales over that entire run. I’m guessing fuel prices and Probe sales cut down the percentages in ’90 and ’91, but these numbers show that the 4 cylinder Mustang wasn’t an anomaly, it was a business plan.
Ubiquitous indeed.
Like you, I have passed by quite a lot of these. I have just never found one that really interested me, because they are either too modded, too beat up, or too . . . I don’t know. Actually, I have found one of interest, which I intend to write up one of these times, when the mood strikes.
Nondescript, pedestrian, bourgeois are some other great adjectives for this car as well, but it all boils down to … meh
After 30 years, that is exactly the response this car still engenders. There’s one in my neighborhood (I pass it every day). It doesn’t help that the EXP and Escort look nearly identical to it.
The Model A owned by the neighbor a few houses down is so much more interesting.
Are these really any better than the 2.3 MusPinto II? Same engine, same transmission…
I never thought so, but the “II” gets all the negative press
While the engine & transmission were similar to the Mustang II, both provided better performance- Fuel injection broadened the four banger’s torque curve, while the T5 had an improved linkage with overdrive.
Incremental improvements to be sure, but a noticeable difference.
Plus the steering, handling and brakes were all significantly improved. The Mustang II’s dynamic qualities were mediocre. The Fox-body was a very substantial improvement in every category. Better space utilization too.
+1 on the space utilization.
As I said in the post I’ve owned a couple of these coupes, not because they were cool or sporty or a Mustang, but because they were a right sized rear drive car with a roomy driver’s seat (I’m 6’2″), decent fuel economy, and an inexpesive purchase price. Sticks only please- In the past I bought a 2.3 with a bad automatic and converted it over to manual just to make it drivable,
In addition, that little four cylinder sitting in a V-8 engine bay provides super service accesaility. I’ve changed out a starter from the top of the engine bay- Reached down, unbolted it, and snaked it out without climbing under the car.
I recall the 4 cylinder Fox Mustang winning an award from Popular Mechanics circa early ’80s for being the easiest car to work on yourself. There was almost room to stand under the hood in some cars.
I think the Fox was quite a bit lighter too, although it doesn’t look it.
Yes in terms of looks. You certainly not going to have folks confuse your 1989 Mustang LX with a Escort unlike the Pinto and the Mustang II
Not an improvement to be sneezed at really
Fox Mustangs are so common that I spotted one on the street in downtown Baghdad, Iraq, of all places. It was an earlier 1979-86 MY car with quadruple rectangular headlights. I would have liked to know how it ended up there, presumably during the 1980s — an individual import from the US, an ex-US serviceman car imported from Germany, etc.
Given the sheer numbers of Fox Mustangs produced since 1979 and the worldwide recognition of the Mustang, they must have spread to every corner of the Earth by now.
I still see these on the road here since rust isn’t an issue, of most years, pre 87 and 87-92. They don’t register much excitement as you say, they are rather humdrum, like most Fords of that era, bland and rather plain with no real character.
It isn’t helped that this example is painted in refrigerator white, which makes ANY car look pedestrian IMO.
I’ve never cared for this iteration of the Fox body ‘stangs, but the earlier ones were better looking, though the 83-86 models were nicest of the lot IMO.
Ubiquitous to you Mr. Skinner and your area but in my area(Washington DC Metro area) I have not seen one of these 87-93 Stangs in years. In fact i have not seen a 79-93 Mustang in years. The area used to be full of them in coupe and hatch guise both 2.3l and 5.0 flavors but I have seen one in person since 2005 when a co worker had a 1988 2.3l in red. By contrast I have seen several probes and Capri convertibles(AKA the Aussie Mercury) in the last 2 years.
Where did they all go to? I see a lot of the 94-2004 Mustangs out there and that surprises me since most were offered with the 3.8l V6 and those were headgasket eaters
Ford only recalled the 3.8 V-6 in their front wheel drive platforms. They claimed rear wheel drive platforms provided better cooling side to side, so there was less temperature differential, and reduced cylinder head warping.
It sounded a bit hinky at the time, but those V-6 Mustangs are still out there, so maybe there’s something to it.
the 1996+ 3.8s with the revised block/head castings pretty much solved the problem. The pre 96 RWDs could be troublesome too, Just ask the Thunderbird guys.
thin film ignition module sucked
Strange…I live in New England, and I still see Fox-body Mustangs regularly. They’re not as common as they were even 10 years ago, but you can see them driving around when the weather is nice. Cruise nights bring them out as well.
Probes seem MUCH less common to me – try getting Probe parts (“a Ford WHAT???”) versus getting Mustang parts (dozens of catalogs revealed by a quick Google search).
As a Mustang fan I’d have bought a Camaro.It looks like a scaled up Escort,not exciting looking enough for me.
I’m used to seeing those in black and white. Texas Department of Public Safety (hiway patrol) loved these notchbacks. Haven’t seen one in a while. They have diversified and drive pickups, tahoes, and all manner of stuff it seems. Same colors as the local gendarmes so one can get confused.
I owned an ’89 4 cyl with an auto. Trans went out just after 60 k. Slower than death but decent MPG, relatively reliable and a good handler without the big V8 upfront. Altogether I would give the car a B-. Sold it to a guy who was going to pull the motor and swap in a 5.0
A good friend of mine bought one of these brand new in 1987. His was a Lima/5 speed and I dove it many times. First of all the fit and finish was excellent for its day. The car was bulletproof, too. He drove it for seventeen years and in all that time, only did regular stuff. He sold it to a family member who nursed it until 2009, at over 400,000 km. He paid $8000 for a car that lasted 22 years. Pretty good in my books.
Downsides? Well, the Lima was a gutless wonder. The paint flaked off so bad we resprayed it ourselves one weekend.
I have to admit….”how you drive a car” is related to longevity of quite a few expensive parts (and labor). Had a Ford Ranger with 2.3 four (8 spark plugs) and it was amazingly reliable and only needed a clutch and timing chain after 130,000 miles? I never did change brake pads until about 115,000 miles (I’m easy on brakes and throw it into neutral alot to coast to a stoplight). While shopping for 1989 Honda Accord, found a guy who had 400,000 miles on his engine with no replacement of anything other than a clutch and brake pads???
The V8 version was raced as a touring car in OZ without success it was significantly slower than the opposition, nobody out this way ever dreamt it also had a 4 banger in it too we thought they were a performance car.
I got an ’89 4 cylinder with an automatic, just like Carl Kolchak, in February of 1990 with 15,000 miles on the odometer. Being a “program car” I’m sure it was straight from the rental fleet.
Yes, the car was slow and hills were torture. It was the only car I’ve had were the carpet was wearing out under the accelerator pedal.
Fit and finish was pretty darn good and the gray exterior and interior did set it apart from all the white and red ones. Mine was a coupe, yet I preferred the lines of the hatchback a bit more.
Fuel consumption was in the 22 to 24 mpg range, which isn’t great, but considering the amount of time my foot was on the floor, I suppose that’s not too bad.
Mechanically it was always fine. The only flaw it had, and part of why I ultimately swapped it off in ’96, was a noise in the rear end. I had it fixed once and when it started again, off she went for a new Thunderbird. Ironically, the Thunderbird had exactly twice the engine and got the same to better fuel mileage.
These are getting scarce around here. I’ve captured pictures of a convertible from this vintage as well as a coupe identical to the one I had; yet I just cannot find any inspiration to write them up.
This was a chapter of life car. It worked well for me at the time, but I wouldn’t care to go back.
“. I can’t think of any other manufacturer that offered a base engine with less than 50% of the premium motor’s displacement (Suddenly, I hear the CC faithful rushing to their keyboards to try and identify another example).”
Well, the Mustang did it way earlier in it’s lifetime. In ’69, for example, you could order a 200-inch I6 or a 429-inch V8.
Also in ’69, you could get a Dodge Dart with a 170-inch Slant6 or a 340-inch V8.
Chevrolet for ’69 was in the game, too. You could get a Nova/Chevy II with a 153-inch I-4 or a 396-inch V-8!
I’ll bet there were others.
I beleive you could get and Iron Duke 4, 2.8 v6 and 305s in early 3rd gen F-Bodys in one model year.
Good call. Certainly early on in 3rd Gen.
If you want to count trucks, too, the ’90 Dodge Dakota could be had with a 2.5 liter I-4 or a 5.2 liter V-8.
What’s really unusual about the 1987-93 Mustang is not just that the largest engine had double the displacement of the smallest engine, but that those were the only two engines available, with nothing in between.
That said, I think I’ve come up with another example: I believe that the 1977 Chevy Monza came with either a 140 CID four or a 305 CID V8, with nothing in between. Even if the Monza had adopted the 151 CID Iron Duke by then, it still fits the criteria. The 1975-76 Monza didn’t qualify because it used the 262 rather than the 305 (at least in “49 states”, non-high altitude form), and the 1978-79 Monza doesn’t qualify becuase it was available with a V6.
Yes- That was my real point.
Not only was there a huge difference between the two engines in this car, but your only choices were ALL or NOTHING. Most of the examples given here included several variations stuffed in between the base and premium engine packages. D/S
“Well, the Mustang did it way earlier in it’s lifetime. In ’69, for example, you could order a 200-inch I6 or a 429-inch V8.”
I believe the Mustang also would have done this from 1975-80 and 1983-86 as well, continuing in ’87 as described in the article. In all of those years, both the 140 CID four and 302 CID V8 were simultaneoulsy offered in at least some Mustang models. (IIRC: there were no V8 Mustangs in ’74; the 255 was the only V8 available in Mustangs in ’81; and the 255 was the only V8 available in non-GT Mustangs in ’82.)
“Chevrolet for ’69 was in the game, too. You could get a Nova/Chevy II with a 153-inch I-4 or a 396-inch V-8!”
For this example, at least, I don’t think the full range of engines was available in any one model. I believe that the 396 was only available with the SS package, which came with the 350 standard. But the largest available engine in non-SS cars was the 350, which was still more than twice the displacement of the four. So was the 327 which had preceded the 350. Prior to the simplification of the Chevy II lineup in 1968, the four was not available in every model, but it looks like at least some Chevy II/Nova models fit the bill every year from 1964 (first year for the 327, as a midyear addition IINM) to 1970 (last year for the four).
As a side note, IIRC some Nova SS’s were built with the 396 for three model years — 1968, 1969 and 1970 — but 1969 was the only year it was an officially listed option.
The current Australian Ford Falcon comes with either a 2.0L 4 cylinder or a 4.0L 6 cylinder. Nothing in the middle (although a supercharged Coyote V8 is available on the FPV versions). The 2.0 is the ecoboost though, so the power difference between it and the non-turbo 6 cylinder isn’t as great as it could be (but don’t mention the turbo 6!).
Holden’s LH Torana in 1974 came with a 1.9 litre four, 2.8 or 3.3 litre sixes, or a 4.2 V8, with a 5.0 only available in the SL/R 5000 (The SL/R also came with the 3.3 or 4.2). Interestingly, despite living in Melbourne, I only ever saw one regular Torana with the 4.2. It seemed to be imprinted in the seventies Aussie male mind that you always went for the biggest six.
Here’s the earlier Mustang (L), also with the 2.3l engine. That’s Son Number Two doing what he had to do a lot of…
That is some wild seat upholstery in his Mustang. Original, I suppose?
Yep! Very ’70s feeling…
I never liked the front end modifications brought in for ’87. The headlights are far too big for the car and make the front look heavy.
They made the Mustang look like Bubbles from the Trailer Park Boys.
http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/bubbles1/bubbles2.jpg
I thought the same thing seeing these over the years about the headlights. I saw someone mod a Mustang once with Thunderbird lights and it actually worked well, they took them from the early 90’s T-bird.
Saleen modified a Mustang with T-bird front lights for Tim Allen. Apparently it also had a 576hp 302. http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/11/tim-allens-one-off-saleen-mustang-rrr-capser-turns-up-for-sale.html
I liked the huge headlights – they were similar in scale to the facelifted Ford Sierra:
I was “lucky” enough to have gotten my sister’s ’77 Mustang II when I turned 16. I never thought of that car as a Pinto or Pinto look-alike. Sure, the 4-cylinder was grossly underpowered and the lack of power steering made it similar to steering a Mack truck. But I loved that car! Sure, any car at 16 is going to be incredible, but that Mustang II made me feel so cool.
I almost forgot two things unusual points of the buying experience on my ’89.
1. The salesman was an Elvis imitator. Had the side burns and “Elvis” on his business card
2. Pulling out of the delivery area from this dealer, Bert Weinman Ford, put you in the alley behind Billy Corrigan’s (from the Smashing Pumpkins) house
Let me guess: The “full delivered price” of your car ended in the number “88.”
If any of you ever watched the late show on WGN, you’ll get the reference. 🙂
Those sales numbers illustrate the Pony Car paradigm – the entry level models trade on the image of the performance models and the performance models survive on the entry models’ volume. – one can’t exist without the other.
Not having a V6 option was one of several mistakes i feel GM made with the new GTO, although the economics of importing them from down under probably made shooting for the higher priced V8s more palatable to them.
Back to this car, the proportions on the cars are just perfect – the surfaces may not scream Mustang the way the Mustang II tried to but there is no doubt that its a pony and what its purpose is.
I may be mistaken but I remember reading somewhere that the first round of Fox cars were one of the first to be analyzed for aerodynamics in computers before heading to the wind tunnel but the computers weren’t powerful enough to handle curved surfaces yet, thus the flat, sheer surfaces. The computers had advanced enough in just a few years when development on the T-bird began that curved surfaces were possible.
The GTO-base car Monaro was sold with a supercharged V6 in Australia, but only for a couple of years as sales were very low. Being automatic-only didn’t help.
” one of the first to be analyzed for aerodynamics in computers before heading to the wind tunnel but the computers weren’t powerful enough to handle curved surfaces yet, thus the flat, sheer surfaces”
Just like the F-117 Nighthawk and the B-2 Spirit. They were only 6 years apart. Both were designed for the same mission – to get close enough to unload their ordinance and retire safely without reflecting enough radar to cause a reaction.
One looks like a flying diamond, the other like a flying bar of soap due to computer power.
My first new car was one of these – a blue hatch with the Lima and 5 speed. Drove it move cross country, and then all over the west. It was as noted pretty gutless, but it got me into a Mustang without extortionate insurance payments. Typical car dealer suckered the much younger me into an extended warranty which never got touched in 110k miles. It ran perfectly when I traded it in for something that fit a child seat a (very little bit) better – a Cherokee 4-liter, also with a 5 speed. .
Here is a dirtly little secret, I sold Fords (and Toyotas) for three months right after high school graduation (Metro Ford/Toyota on East/West Hwy in Silver Spring, MD).
Worst three month of my life BTW.
My first and only sale was to some poor slump who had a ’82 Mustang L that was just looking.
I sold him a 87 Mustang LX, that with the exception of the updated trim, was THE EXACT SAME CAR. Same engine, color, and options.
He didn’t need it, and really couldn’t affort it.
It took forever to get all the paperwork done, didn’t leave till 12am…and the look of “what have I done” on that poor guys face. Never again.
Well, at least that experience got me to go to college.
I think of that poor guy and that look on his face whenever I see an old Mustang LX…
I always thought this incarnation of the Mustang was like the first time ‘Detroit intentionally copied the styling cues of ‘Japan’ rather than the other way around.
Before This the Granada was an imitation Mercedes, as I’ve always assumed this body style was trying to be like. Ford ads Made Light f the price difference for rughly getting the same car. Pure flattery ?
I’d say it’s more like sheer look meets Mercedes SLC. I don’t see any Japanese influence.
Interesting, good comparison!
Every time I’ve seen an SLC (or more often, a picture of one), I think to myself, “Why does it look so familiar?” Finally someone has answered my question!
+1
There was alot of 1978 Toyota Celica in the ’79 Mustang – Toyota went rheir own way for the rear side windows, but otherwise the look is quite similar. The Nissan 200SX and (Mitsubithii) Plymouth Sapparo were all trading in the same basic boxes as the Fox sedan.
While the influences on the face-lifted exterior can be debated, the refreshed interior was pure Japan. The original Fox interior had been an homage to German ergonomics of the day, but the update could have come straight out of a Nissan or Mitsubishi coupe.
I had a 89 GT Convertible, Auto…. and it was fun, but This having a hard Top and a four Cylinder engine after driving that for five years would , be equal to taking the 2 best features away from My mustang, so no go for me. But I wll say, I see a lot of them, There are More Mustang survivors in daily LA traffic of every year. Well few from the seventies are alive. So their being alive in numbers twenty five years later says something.
A friend of mine bought a used one of these with the 4-cylinder and thought he had a “bitchin’ Stang.” Um, dude… chick car. Later on he replaced it with a Beretta. Some folks never learn…
Ahhh…don’t forget, guys and gals: 1991 gave Mustang’s with the Lima four a revised cylinder head with twin plugs for each cylinder. This brought HP up to an astounding 105(!) and certainly out of “chick car” territory.
Were 17 extra ponies worth the extra cost at tune up time? Discuss…
Probably not, but you could at least get out of the parts store with your manhood intact by buying 8 plugs for your Mustang. 🙂
Nissan did that in 1980. I owned an 81 Datsun with 4cyl/8 plugs. GF with a ranger had that design and I asked a mechanic friend if it was a ripoff of Nissan. He said it was a ripoff of Lotus.
Ideas recycle. Hope I don’t make this comment twice but the site just ate a prior comment on this.
Well… the Ford 6.2L V8 has SIXTEEN spark plugs, so…
These definitely aren’t ubiquitous downunder, I have only ever seen a couple. I think there would have been a handful of privately-imported cars in the era they were racing in Group A, and even since the “good” ones (ie 5.0) are passing the 25 year old mark that means they don’t have to be converted to right-hand drive they don’t seem to be coming in. I think they just never made much of an impact here.
Regarding the engine size thing, the Holden Torana from the mid-late 1970’s could be had with a 1.9L 4cyl or a 5.0L V8, there were 2.9L 6-cyl and 4.2L V8 options in between however.
Yes! I’ve been waiting for a CC on the 87-93 mustang for quite some time. I was living and travelling in the US a few years ago, and I bought myself an 89′ LX convertible with the 5.0 and auto. I absolutely loved that car! I put a lot of miles on it driving all over the west. It was a great companion on so many camping road trips in Utah, Colorado, and Idaho. What a great way to see the USA!
I payed peanuts for it, and although not perfect it never let me down. The 5.0 engine was a gem and made a great sound. I had no trouble reaching the 140 mph top speed on the instrument panel either. I even experienced my first winter driving in snow with it. Obviously not the best vehicle choice for such driving. The lack of traction (not surprisingly) was downright scary, but I survived a Utah winter with it somehow! I guess chains and winter tires are for wusses.
It has only been 2 years since I (reluctantly) sold it, and I’m already waxing nostalgic for it. I plan on buying one again when I’m able and shipping it here to Australia.
Despite the strong following these cars have in the US, they were not a common sight where I lived. I did see one on rare occasion. Usually a 4 cylinder model in similar condition to the one above. Oddly enough, a few people had to ask me what I was driving, not recognizing that the car was actually a mustang
While the 5.0 Fox Mustang sucked in the snow, models with the Lima motor perfomed pretty well. I rang up all my Fox body mileage while living in Denver, and never encountered a snow storm that forced me to park and walk.
Between the improved weight distribution, and a torque curve that struggled to spin the tires even on slick surfaces, they moved along quite nicely. I had both a coupe and convertible over the years, and the convertible performed a bit better, thanks to the extra weight provided by the top mechanism and hydraulics mounted right on top of the rear axle.
Loving the XA taillight avatar there Marlin!
My 5.0 on the Million Dollar Hwy near Ouray Colorado back in ’10.
I think the Vulcan 3.0L v6 would have moved these right along just fine. It was most likely on the minds of Ford but I think there was not enough engines to go around, being that the Taurus twins & Aerostar had them.
I worked for a rental car agency that had a ton of these. Some were hardtops, some convertibles. All junk in my mind. The wheezy engine and skinny tire/wheel combination that tucked up under the car said CHEAP to me. We also had two 5.0’s. I was not supposed to drive those as a Jr. Manager. But hey, what the General Manager didn’t know won’t hurt him right? Night and day difference.
Indeed. Mrs. JPC and I rented a 1990 LX convertible on our honeymoon. A white car, red interior and the 5.0/AOD. It was an enjoyable car for the week we had it. It was also the only car I ever drove that had enough power/torque to mask the unpleasantness of the old AOD tranny, with its torque converter that locks up immediately upon its shift into 3rd gear.
The ‘secretary special’ notchback roof Mustang has been a bread-and-butter Ford staple ever since 1964, and the 2.3L/automatic Fox Mustang is one of the better selling examples. It’s sporty, relatively practical with good fuel mileage and few mechanical issues, and a car that nearly any young, single woman could afford to buy and drive without difficulty. Not a performance car at all, but that market doesn’t really care.
In fact, it might be said that the small engine Mustang was a significant contributor to the feminist movement in the US. Prior to the Mustang, what, exactly, did young single women buy and drive? The only other vehicle that had been specifically targeted to the female market was the pink and white 1955-56 Dodge La Femme, and that car didn’t exactly light up the sales charts:
I had a friend that had an 88 with the 2.3L, it had a heating problem, it would loose heat & the temp would fall, but most times it wouldn’t even heat up to normal. I tried numerous t stats, if you pinched off the upper hose, it would heat up to normal but when you unpinched it & drove away, it would loose heat. The t stat fit into the housing with a round seal, it had to be bypassing it there.
I need Leonard Nimoy to do an episode of In Search Of… on this.
Just a minor nitpick but airbags were first installed in Fox Mustangs for the 1990 model year. And.. I’m a big fan of Fox ‘Stangs, had 3 over the years, an ’84 Four Eyes (what ’79-’86 enthusiasts have nicknamed them) V6 coupe which moved that car along smartly while giving very good fuel economy, an ’89 5.0/AOD coupe, and a ’90 5.0/AOD ragtop. My late older brother had a ’91 2.3 hatch when he died, and one of my younger brothers had an ’89 5.0/T5 coupe. Was looking for another FoxStang when I stumbled upon the ’78 Fairmont 5.0L I’m currently driving.
My bad- I knew the refresh didn’t have airbags for the first 3 years of production, so MY 87 + 3 = 90.
Post updated- Next time, I’ll remember to use my fingers. D/S
The summer of 87 I purchased a new 2.3l LX notchback off a dealer’s lot.
380,000 miles 27 years later she’s still in my driveway sitting next to the
1992 1/2 limited edition Summer Special I picked up summer of 96
gotta love the foxbody
Just ran across this article. I never thought much about my 87 lx 2.3 convertible engine as ubiquitous. I always thought I was the only one who bought it in 1987. It was what I could afford at 24. I still have the car and have kept it as showroom condition as possible. I doubt it will ever be worth anything, but it was my first car and couldn’t ever think of parting with it. For a 4 cylinder it still has a surprising amount of pep.
The fox bodied Mustangs were generally sturdy automobiles, but suffered from cheap materials, questionable interiors and spotty build quality. They were mechanically reliable except for the dreadful 2.3 4 cylinder turbo used in ’79-81 and then again in ’83-84 as an “improved,” EFI yet still crude and trouble prone. Perhaps the biggest fault with the 5 liter cars was the undersized brakes with the disk/drum configuration. These cars were a nail biting experience in a panic stop! The ’87-93 GT’s are painfully garish looking. The egregious “cheese grater” tail lights are the car’s worst side. And the awful ’80s aero skirting lends to an overall bulky appearance. Not too mention those giant aero headlamps with optics worse than the old halogen sealed beams! The ’82 Mustang GT was the cleanest looking of the series, despite the giant front end air dam.
This is a pretty old post so I’m probably talking to myself here, but I had a ’92 LX 2.3L. It made 105 hp but had good torque off the line. It handled well once I replaced the rear shocks. Weird story: I took it to have a preventive maintenance timing belt replacement, and the shop screwed it up. It ran but very sluggish and slow. So what they redid it, upon startup it made the ticking sound of borderline misfire, but had a good deal more power. By the time I drove 1/2 hour back home, it was back to it’s normal slow but quiet self. My guess is that the computer had advanced the timing to keep it running, and took a few cycles to correct it once it realized the timing marks were correct. So there is more power in there somewhere. Supposedly a Superchip adds 14 more horses, which is kinda how it felt. Big difference when it’s only 105 to start. Just my two cents.
Well hello Me!
I was going to tell that story here, but apparently I beat me to it by 13 months.
See you in another year…
Here it is 6 years later, and the phrase “ubiquitous” no longer applies-
Currently, if you see a Fox body ‘Stang on the road or in Craigslist, it’s a 5.0. Period. These 2.3 cars have all faded into the mist.
There was a very nice, original 2.3 convertible for sale at the big Hershey Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) meet this past weekend.
Indeed, even in wanna-be Curblandia here, and with lots of low-income students and others, plus no rust, these have disappeared and frankly even 5.0 Foxes are now rare. I was going to write that I’d never driven one of these, but I just remembered a 4 cylinder automatic rental, though it was a Capri. I’ve also driven three different 5.0’s, a GT and two LX’es. Fun cars, as was an older Turbo Mustang I was thinking of buying. Much nicer than a Pinto or Mustang II, regardless of horsepower. To me, though this body style doesn’t make much sense; I’d prefer a hatchback for versatility or a convertible for fun.
I came here to say exactly the same thing. I still occasionally see the 5.0 Fox body Mustangs on the road — one of my neighbor’s has two of them parked on the street (which might skew my perception of how common they still are). Those were the cool ones, the one’s people saved. I *never* see Mustang LX’s on the road anymore.
Which of course means if you do see one now it would be prefect CC fodder.
Nice find.
Truth be told, I never liked this generation of Mustang that much. It just seemed very bland, and by the time they came out so many other companies were offering better alternatives than 4 cylinders for muscle cars I didn’t think about ever wanting to get one. Apparently that was also a case with SLC in general, as there was a somewhat short-lived dealership(from around, maybe 85 to 88 or 89) called “Dan’s Mustang and Capri” who barely sold any of his new fox-body cars(and it wasn’t because of bad prices.
(Example, mom bought a nearly brand new Capri with the 2.3 liter Lima for around $2500 in 1986, translating to around $5700 now)
The biggest engine only twice as big as the smallest? Amateurs.
In the late 00s and early 10s, the Mercedes C-Class range went from a (supercharged) 1.8 in the base model to a 6.2 in the 63 AMG.
Firstable, that bit about the plastic wheel is fascinating. I never knew that, and that’s a bit of automotive knowledge (not trivia) worth sharing!
Secondable, let me write an apologia for the 4 cylinder Mustang. Way back in 1987, 90 Hp wasn’t all THAT bad; that was average for a four cylinder car. The mighty 5.0 made something like 140 hp so there wasn’t as much of a loss as you might think today. The V8, despite Vanilla Ice’s paean to it, wasn’t all THAT fast. It would certainly have been reasonably competitive with some of the other sporty coupes in 1987 like a 200SX or Prelude or Sunbird or GTI or what have you.
However, there was a VAST difference in price and insurance costs. As a couple of people have pointed out, this may have started its life in a rental fleet, and allowed Hertz to give an upgrade to a sporty car without the sticker expense of a V8 and the increased likelihood that its renters were going to stuff it into the guardrail.
In 1987, it wasn’t out of the question for high schoolers/young college students to get a new car instead of Mom’s wheezing jalopy, and the four cylinder had a great price point and lower insurance costs than the V8. Michael or Michelle gets a new car with reasonable insurance and Mom and Dad are less concerned about him or her losing control of the car and racking up a bunch of tickets than they would be with a V8.
The 4 was considerably less expensive than the 8 as well; I’m guessing this probably stickered somewhere around $9000, which would have made it competitive price wise with the Tempo, an Escort GT, low line Daytonas, a Cavalier/Sunbird, Colt, hatchback coupe Sentra, or a Civic. This is certainly a much more appealing car than a Tempo or a wheezy econobox; This might be wheezy but is certainly more stylish.
It’s certainly not the best version of the 1987 Mustang, but it’s a better choice than y’all are giving it credit for being.
By 1987, the 5.0 HO put out a LOT more than 140 horsepower (225 hp) and was much faster than any four cylinder import of the time, except maybe a 944 Turbo. The earlier 302/5.0’s, torquey but not much HP in those early post-malaise years.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I loved my four-banger ’88 Mustang. To SavageATL’s point above, it was within my budget (for the car itself, gas and insurance), and it did what it was supposed to do with a little bit of sporty style.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/cc-capsule-1992-ford-mustang-gt-convertible-home-for-the-holidays/
The original Mustang’s claim to fame was that it offered widespread sporty appeal at a reasonable price with a reliable, economical drivetrain from the dowdy Falcon.
The Fox Mustang 2.3L definitely carried on the tradition, exactly on target. It’s to Ford’s credit that they were/are able to keep the same appeal for so long.
The engine choices in the Fox Mustangs reminds me of the Ford’s of the 1930’s. Choices were an inline 4 or a V-8.
I knew a lot of people who had this era of Mustangs, nearly all of them 5.0’s with one SVO which was a foretelling of his later era EcoBoost nightmares. They were popular not because of looks, but because they were cheap and quick. Until the GM F-Bodies gained the power to crush them these were the choice of young (mostly guys) with not a lot of money who wanted to go fast. The Buick GN variants were much better to look at IMO, but something as cheap as an LX Mustang 5.0 had me, a lifelong Fordaphobe, close to pulling the trigger on one in the later 80’s. One friend had a maroon fastback, one of the better equipped ones at the point it was scary fast and when the blower went on it, he ended up going quick enough to require a roll cage to drive it at Milan Dragway. By the later 90’s most of them were gone with Camaros or Tran Am’s with LS power appearing at the nearby street racing launch area quite a bit. There was an amazingly hard launching candy apple Mustang that had all the usual stuff done to it and one night appeared with an LS engine in it, I remember how violent it launched just on decently smooth pavement with smallish slicks on it.. Last time I saw it, it was running another Mustang and then it was suddenly gone, wrecked down near Columbus someplace around 2003 or so. That car was replaced with a 2002 Trans Am in blue which ended up by 2010 as a full on race car that seemed to be the “king” around the south end of Toledo anyway. Last time I saw it was around the end of 2010, about the time I bought my 2010 Challenger. Anytime I see the other blue T/A from the same final F-Body era, I wonder what that candy apple Mustang guy is driving now? A Mustang, or a Camaro, or maybe a Challenger?
No longer ubiquitous in the Bay Area. I usually do a search every week for Mustangs in the region. Last nights search turned up 14 cars from 1979-1993. All of them 5.0 engines which meant almost all of them had been bastardized to some extent as is typical. Just try to find a 5.0 in original condition although my search was limited to $6000 and under. Heck, even at up to $15K only 8 more showed up, all 5.0, and all tweaked still. When these cars hit their third owner… look out.
“All of them 5.0 engines which meant almost all of them had been bastardized to some extent”
Given the 5.0 pretty much drops into a 2.3 engine bay, the bastardization may include an engine swap, removing another 2.3 from the streets. The engine bay cross member is the same between the 4 and 8 (unlike the straight six), and all the drive line, suspension and brake upgrades are “unbolt and replace.”
Even modifying the tach is simple- there’s a three position switch on the back, so you just change it from “4” to “8.”
These sold well because you can get the practicality of a Ford Fairmont with the look of a Mustang. I had a red 1992 hatch and it was a perfect daily ride. It had everything I loved about the blase’ Futura I had, but it got lots of girl’s attention. I’d get another in a heartbeat and completely understand the popularity of these Fox Mustangs – even the ubiquitous ones like this one!
Having owned a few Fox Mustangs over the years, I preferred the straight six in my 81 Ghia. Just enough grunt for city driving and adequate on the highway. I later bought an 84 L hatch with the four cylinder which sounded strained at highway speed, around the city it was fine. The 2.3 could blow head gaskets which mine did for the next owner. I’ve also experienced the turbo 4 in my 79 Cobra hatch and the 255 V8 in an 80 Ghia with coach roof.
I want another Fox Mustang and will take whatever I can find. A four banger convertible would be nice for the summer to transport grandchildren. Those cars are still priced reasonably.
But then this 77 Granada has got my attention. For $700 it is very, very tempting.
These 4 cylinder/auto Mustangs were a common site throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Frequently a high school graduation present and the young person’s first “new” car.
Automatic transmissions were a weak point, and when they died…the cars either became 5.0 swaps or collision part donors. Extremely rare to see a 4-cylinder Fox body these days.
To comment on the lack of a V6 or any six-cylinder from ’87 to ’93, the same thing holds true today for all 2018 or newer Mustangs: your only choices are a (much more powerful) base engine known as the 2.3L EcoBoost I4 or the optional 5.0L Coyote V8 (& its 5.2L derivative). The sad thing about it was that the 3.7L Cyclone V6 was finally giving base Mustangs a 2nd wind in the form of at least 300 hp starting in 2011; just a year prior this was still GT territory! For several years you couldn’t go wrong with ANY Mustang. When the EcoBoost came out in 2015, however, it must’ve eventually proved to be much more popular than the V6. Having the about the same or higher hp & torque with potentially better gas mileage was likely a huge factor. It’s the SVO of the 21st Century.
I dated a chick who drove a Fox body Capri. My tired memory swears it had an in-line 6. Is this possible?
my ’76 Mercury Capri had the 2.8L V6, Dual Monza exhaust, stick shift and was a hatchback. It was great for sleeping/car camping because the seats folded flat and the rear windows popped open with a hinge-lock for cross breeze. The suspension handled beautifully in the twisties and it was incredibly trouble-free.
The engine had the Ford Motor Company name plate so I called it my Ford Capri.
My current mimosa yellow ’89 Mustang is a 2.3 I4. It has a rebuilt auto and can endure any type of driving and corners on rails! I have GT wheels on it with 225 60 R15 tires on it.
It is a VERY reliable commuter and averages between 23-26 mpg with fuel records going back over 6 years. It will be for sale soon for the right price and is waiting for a new owner to do a Coyote swap!