The second-generation Camaro and the Fox-body Mustang have one fundamental similarity–their unlikely longevity. Both cars trembled under the long ax of their respective corporations at some point during their tenures, and both sold reasonably well throughout their respective model runs. Mustang v. Camaro has long been America’s most lasting battle between nameplates, but one must wonder if they were truly competing for the same buyer in the late-’70s and early ’80s. The “American as Apple Pie” Camaro overlapped what was perhaps the most European Mustang ever, and both tasted success.
By the time this ’78 Z28 saw the light of day, the second-generation bodystyle was really an anachronism, a byproduct of the “wasteful” muscle car era, a dinosaur. Against the prevailing wisdom of the time, however, they continued to sell in numbers that would make Chevrolet weep tears of joy these days: 272,631 units in 1978, 54,907 of them Z28s.
Those are heady numbers for a vehicle introduced during the Nixon administration and living in the disco malaise. The Camaro’s success is directly attributable to its “still-attractive after all those years” styling and reasonable power, two things that were harder to come by in the late 1970s.
As a performance car, the Z28 was stout, if not as stout as a similar Trans Am. It was also pretty big, longer than even a 2015 model at 197.6 inches. At under 50 inches, the ’78 model, however, sat about one floor lower than a current Camaro. The Z28 came standard with a 350 four-barrel, muscle car axle ratios, and a choice of four-speed or automatic. In a way, it was like the good old days, minus about 100 net horsepower. At least it handled well.
And the interior still looked the part. A brushed aluminum gauge cluster surrounded actual gauges, the old Chevy rally wheel still looked just right, and the console and four-speed could have been right out of a ’71 Camaro. The high-back buckets made the interior that much more cocoonish, but people expected that in their pseuso-muscle cars, at least for the time being. All in all, the second-generation ponycars lasted as long as they did because they were inherently good cars, but as the cliche goes, the times were changing.
The ’79 Mustang had as much in common with the ’78 Camaro (and the hapless Mustang II, for that matter) as a butter knife has with a machete. In retrospect, this is the car Bill Mitchell could have designed during the ’70s; it has the “sheer look” written all over it. Angular and spare, lean and taut–it was everything the Camaro wasn’t in 1979.
Much has been made about the 2015 Mustang’s “world-car” qualities, but the ’79 was truly the first European-style Mustang. The Cobra was equipped with a turbocharged four-cylinder (that was actually marginally quicker than the optional 302), strange metric wheels with matching metric tires, and the slickest drag coefficient of any Ford ever sold to the public (to that point).
This uncommon, original Cobra is a bit of a throwback, powered by the two-barrel 302, which produced a fair 140 horsepower in ’79. The 302 took a hiatus in ’80 and ’81 in lieu of the woeful 255 CAFE special, only to return in fighting trim in the ’82 GT. The 302 was a good decision, as the turbo-four did not come with an intercooler, and was rough and rugged on a good day. The 302 also produced more turbo-lag free torque in day to day driving.
In comparison to the Camaro, the Mustang is obviously more lithe and lean, and it’s no optical illusion: the Mustang measured 179.1 inches from stem to stern, a whopping 18 inches shorter than the Z. Maybe because of this, the public took to the new Mustang in a big way, buying 369,936 Mustangs in ’79, of which only 47,568 were 302-propelled. It certainly was a new, fuel-conscious world out there in 1979.
The interior in this automatic-equipped example is equally enthusiast-oriented, with numerous gauges on a black surround. The steering wheel pales in comparison to the Z28’s, but a sportier steering wheel was available optionally. One of the more awkward aspects of the ’79 was the low-mounted interior door handle, located way down under the window crank. Needless to say, that was a “better idea” that didn’t last too long. One striking point about this interior is how airy and open it looks compared to the Camaro’s. That same ethos continues today: the Camaro is somewhat bunker-like to drive, while the Mustang feels a little less constricting in comparison.
While our featured Camaro was nearing the end of its life cycle, the ’79 Cobra would culminate as the fire-breathing ’93 Cobra pictured above. While the second-generation Camaro continued to sell well even into its twilight years, Mustang sales were dropping by ’93, finally being replaced by the SN-95 model late in that calendar year.
Considering all its success, it seems odd to think that the Fox Mustang was almost replaced by the Ford Probe, which was a nice enough looking car for its time, but certainly no Mustang. The Camaro too was almost axed; Camaro/Firebird sales were so low in 1972, partially as a result of the 1972 strike at the Norwood assembly plant, that GM considered dropping them altogether.
Thankfully for ponycar fans, cooler heads prevailed, and we’re left with two vehicles that covered a lot of ground over their long lives. Today, although many butchered examples of both have led to dubious reputations (drag cars and “mulletmobiles,” anyone?), they were right for their times, and looking at these two nice examples is a treat for any car fan.
Wow, I had no idea the new Camaro is as long as my father’s Taurus sedan.
I’ve ridden in examples of each of these cars, they SEEM to be LESS alike than 2 peas in a pod but not quite as different as apples and oranges. In similar condition with V8s under the hood, I think I’d rather have the Camaro. It’s heavier but part of that heaviness is a FEELING of solidity. Fox-bodied cars, on the other hand, are lighter feeling cars (be it a Fairmont or Continental) and therefore can feel faster….even when they aren’t. But they are also fragile feeling, and EVERY fox-bodied car I’ve ridden in/driven was “casually” assembled.
I agree the early Foxes have cheap interiors (much better ’87-’93). In terms of body/chassis integrity though they are stout. Compare the doors from an early Fox to any second gen Cam/Firebird with their sloppy latches and hinge sag vs window frames, lightness and superior latches of the Mustang.
Love the early gen 2 TA’s though!
The Mustang dash is lifted right out of the Fairmont (adding gauges), but it still looks rational & not overdone like modern ones, esp. in black like this.
I remember being surprised seeing an ad in Der Spiegel for “Der Neue Mustang.” So the mention of European styling was apposite.
The second generation Camaro is one of my favorite cars ever. I owned a ’79 Z-28 for about 2 1/2 years. Traded it for a brand new ’87 Fiero. The Fox body Mustang never did anything for me. I liked the Mustang II much better. Ford finally started turning the Mustang back into a Mustang back in ’94, and finally hit the nail on the head in 2005, during the Camaro’s absence. Then they ruined it again for 2015. The third generation Camaro looked ok, despite being a hatchback. It felt a lot less substantial and more flimsy than the second generation. The fourth generation brought back much of the solid feel, but I’m not sure what to make of the looks. The fifth generation nailed the looks. But unlike earlier generations, it is depreciating so slowly I may never be able to own one. A 2005-2009 Mustang is withing my reach. With louvers over the rear quarter windows they look a lot like the ’68 model.
I had a ’79 Trans Am for 5 years, and owned a ’78 Z28 for literally a few hours, and an ’86 Iroc for almost 7 years. I bought the ’79, fixed a couple of minor issues, and took an offer I couldn’t refuse and made a $1000 profit on it. I wish I could have kept it, and replaced the weakish 305 in it with a better engine, but I needed to turn it, and I did. But I never understood the appeal of the ’79 to 93 Mustangs, they weren’t good looking at all, IMHO, of course it’s all subjective. A friend of mine bought an ’82 or ’83, I can’t remember which year it was, and by the time he sold it, it was scary fast (mid 12’s at the track) with a nice built up 302, but still seemed very crude compared to my T/A, and my T/A handled a lot better, and didn’t have the squeaks and groans the Mustang did. It did sell well, and I still see a few of them running around, very rusty, but still out on the road. At this point though, the Mustang is 10X better looking than the Camaro, which makes me, as a 3 time F-Body owner, very sad. I really hope GM makes the upcoming car look like the 2nd gen cars. If they do it right, I will give it a look, but if it looks like the present one, it’s Challenger #2 for me in 2016/17.
I agree about the new Camaro’s looks. I’ve owned a 72 Z28, an 86 six cylinder (my first car) and a 94 cop package Camaro, so I’m (or used to be) a Camaro guy. IMO the new Camaros are fugly. When they first were discussing bringing back the Camaro I remember seeing sketches of the new Camaro based on a 2nd gen design. It looked awesome, but then we got these silly looking ones based on the 1st gen.
Just not my cup of tea and they are so expensive I wouldn’t be interested in one even if I did like it’s looks. If I was going to spend that kind of money on a car I’d get a really nice 911.
We could wonder what could had happened if GM had pulled the plug on the Camaro/Firebird in 1972? And what the repercussions to its rivals Mustang/Cougar, Cuda/Challenger and Javelin? James Garner and Burt Reynolds would had driven another car instead that’s for sure. 😉
I was a toddler when the Foxstang made its debut, and 18 when it made its last appearance…so it’s hard for me to be objective in looking at a car that hung around for WAY too long. But from what I’ve read, when the ’79 Mustang came out, it was revolutionary. Twenty-some years removed from the Fox’s last model year, I’m still more drawn to the 2nd-gen Camaro’s dramatic, all-American look than the Mustang’s upright, “European” angularity.
When the ’79 Mustang debuted, it was a breath of fresh air. Up to that point, it was the truest to the original concept in many a year. About the same size, about the same profile (the coupe), same basic engines (in-line 200 six and Windsor V8, I’m ignoring the Cologne V6 and the 4),
and dash & running gear lifted from a compact sedan, (Fairmont instead of Falcon). The early ones were a little iffy in the fit & finish department, especially the interior, but compared to the Mustang II, it was a revelation. I liked the taught, square upright style, and it was lighter, too.
That Camero dash/steering wheel combo looks the absolute business, no-nonsence black with tasteful use of aluminium, and big, clear dials. I like it, a lot.
Especially in comparison to the horrid interiors that were to come in the 3rd-gen cars….how did they go so wrong?
It took my 13 yr old mind a while to understand these ’79 Fox ‘stangs as they were…um…different. By ’82, however, the Boss was back, and then my sister bought a brand new ’85, in jalapeno red. I was hooked. And the funny part is, my ’83 Ranger truck shares a ton of interior parts with the Fox Fairmont/Mustang.
It’s always weird to see how different cars share the interior parts.
A volare radio is the same as one in imperial, Reliant has same interior parts with Maserati Chrysler TC, and Town Car comparing to police interceptor. Same radio on Lincoln Mark VIII and cheap Ford Ranger ( with cassette deleted )
I just edited my post and it did not work. Just letting you know.
The hatchback version of the fox-bodied Mustang was the most popular and memorable bodyshape, but I felt the notchback version may have aged better. Whatever the model year, I associate the hatchbacks with the original models like the 1979 Cobra and Indy Pace Car versions. And though the hatchback is a classic design, to me, it looked dated by the mid to late 80s. Even with the aero nose and updated styling details. While the notchback, partly because of its rarity, had a cleanliness that appealed in it’s own right. I thought it looked more European and exclusive. More a personal coupe. By 1986, I wouldn’t look twice at a hatchback. But I always liked the uniqueness and clean lines of the notchback. In spite of it being less practical and less popular, I am glad that Ford kept the notchback around. Though they weren’t that common, the EXP watered down the Mustang hatchback’s style originality somewhat as well.
I was a kid in the 70s, and the secord generation Camaro was like a caricature then. It felt like it would have this styling forever. Like the 1968 Corvette. It seemed like driving a second gen Camaro was a lifestyle statement more than anything.
The notchback stuck around to the end for two reasons; cops and convertibles.
Interesting opinion; I felt like it was the other way around, the notchbacks I saw were mostly early ones while the late 5.0 LX hatch showed the Foxstang at its’ most modern. I’ve softened on the late Fox GT, though; at the time I parroted the Car and Driver line that it was tacky and a waste of the money it cost over a 5.0 LX, but I’d like one now just because of how it screams late ’80s/early ’90s.
what I want to know is how much stuff was in the F-body doors to make them so damned heavy?
length, and leverage…
Having owned both, the F-body was more sports car, the Fox more sedan…
The Fox ‘Stangs tried to be everything to everyone, and in doing that, the base versions ended up being more economy car than anything else. While you *could* get a 4-cyl Camaro in the early 80’s, it’d never be mistaken for an economy car.
I like the looks of the 2nd generation Firebird more then the Camaro. The Camaro looked seriously dated by 1978 due to the keeping of round headlights(while the Firebird switched over to rectangular lights in 77)
I think out of the GM F body twins, Firebird got the better looking car (especially the 82-92 version) It was sleek and stylish looking. I saw a 91-92 Firebird on the way to work today in shiny black. It looked good and reminded me why I like the 82-92 Firebird so much.
The 79-93 Fox Body Mustang looked pretty damn good in its heyday and good condition ones still look fresh even though the last one was made 21 years ago.
The trouble is that you hardly see 79-93 Mustangs in the wild driving about(and not just at car shows) and the one you see are ether 5.0 models or 4 cylinder versions that were converted to hold a 5.0 engine. You never see any of the 4 cylinder cars out there even though it was the 4 cylinder version that helped the Mustang survive. In 79-93 a lot of potential Mustang owners could not afford the insurance on a 5.0. So in order to gain entry in the Cult of the Mustang, they bought the 4 banger versions. Without those folks buying the Mustangs then sales would have gone flat.
4 cylinder mustang is pretty scarce. Same story with how scarce a V6 1983 chevy Malibu, Slant Six Chrysler LeBaron, 6 cylinder Ford Fairmont is these days.
A dealership near me in Ferndale, Mi they got a ’93 mustang with Lima L4 with only 9000 miles, and it took nearly a year For the car to disappear in the lot.
Quite a few 1988-93, 4 banger, ‘rental car specials’ were built into dragsters, for the NMRA Mustang Racing Series.
Having owned a V6 ’82 Malibu, there’s good reason you don’t see many–they were painfully slow. I don’t know why anyone bought the 6 cylinder versions in the first place; a car like that needs V8 power, especially in that emissions-choked time when even the V8 versions struggled to make 150 HP.
Your point is quite true though. The higher-spec versions tend to survive, and some of the lesser-engined models end up with swaps to V8 somewhere along the way. Much more so with the 2-door cars.
I vote for the Mustang. This is all personal preference. I’ve driven both and I hate the driving position in the Z28. The Mustang seemed a bit more upright and it handled better. Personal opinion.
Reason why I’ll never have a Corvette. Well, there are others…
There are still a lot of Fox bodies in the south. Most have been tricked up. If I see an old Camaro it usually looks like it’s two steps from the crusher.
Very sweet cars indeed. When ever I see that era of Camaro I think of Spicoli saying “Relax, my Dad is a Television repair man he’s got an awesome set of tools. I can fix it” LOL!!
Fast times at Ridgemont high
Well make up your mind, man… is he gonna shit or is he gonna kill us?
Can anyone comment on the relationship between the Fox chassis and the European Sierra? The Sierra certainly looks like a slightly melted Mustang.
Other than the broad strokes (Uni-body structure, Macpherson strut front suspension), the two cars share nothing in common. I can’t think of a major component they share in common, including the steering rack, steering column and front suspension pieces.
The Sierra is also independent rear suspension, unlike the Fox body. The only common element I can think of is the wheel bolt pattern.
Both good cars.
But I’ll take the 442.
Nice article on a couple of class leaders. Had a 79 Mustang “Ghia”; the body design was very clean. The interior not so much, with a plastic wood dash fit for a cheap clock radio. It had an unusual straight six (Falcon!) and sluggish performance. The story was that Ford ran low on V6s from Europe and made a substitution (2.8L=170 ci, right?).
The Camaros still look like, well, Camaros.
The story goes that when Ford ran short of 2.8 V6s they substituted them for the old 200 inline six, and that was the optional six-cylinder until they started using the awful 3.8 V6 in ’83. Then, starting in ’87, it was only fours and the 5.0.
I’ve heard that as well. It seems plausible, given that around this time, Ford of Europe decided to rationalize its V-6s around the Cologne engine, dropping the British-made Essex (except in South Africa). So, the Cologne became the standard European Ford V-6, shared by the Cortina, Granada, Capri, et al.
I think the Taurus 3.0L would have been a good mid option motor for the fox body mustangs.
Just completed some engine research:
* 2.3L 2V 4cyl … 88 hp
* 2.3L 2V 4cyl (Turbocharged) … 132 HP
* 2.8L 2V V-6 … 109 HP
* 3.3L 1V 6cyl … 85 HP
* 5.0L 2V V-8 … 140 HP
No wonder the the 3.3L (200ci) seemed slow. 85 HP is hard to believe!
Chestnut paint color makes up for a lot, but …
I wonder how much slower the 200 was in relation to the 2.8. Strictly from what I’ve read, the 200 had plenty of torque, so they didn’t necessarily feel much (if any) slower. It would be interesting to note if there were any road tests of Mustangs with these engines to compare.
I do agree that the Firebird always looked a bit better than the Camaro. The mid ’70s Firebird was especially appealing, both the Trans Am and Esprit, though I actually prefer the Esprit. A big part of the reason for me was the Firebird’s round fenders. As for round headlights, I actually preferred the ’76 to the ’77 when it comes to the front end. I fell in love with this car while watching the Rockford Files. Since the Corvette was mentioned, I owned an orange ’77 for about 2 1/2 years. I always liked the ’74-’77 Corvettes more than any other years, from the very beginning right up till now. Yes, style plays an important part in whether I like a car or not. And the ’79-’93 Mustang simply didn’t have any. It looked like a folded and creased cereal box to me. The notchback 5.0 is a great “sleeper car” and all the non convertible Fox body cars made great drag racers, but style they didn’t have.
I don’t understand all the aversion to the new Camaro. It sells like crazy. I am very hard to please when it comes to looks and I like it. It is actually my favorite of the current Camaro/Challenger/Mustang cars. I feel the 2015 Mustang is a disgrace to the Mustang name. It looks totally Japanese. But from what I hear, the Camaro and Challenger are headed in that direction as well. Hopefully I will be able to snatch up one of the cool looking versions of one of these cars before they all wind up in the scrap pile, which will happen in today’s throwaway society.
Amazed that some are ‘surprised’ to see Fairmont platform sharing with ’79 Mustang. Look underneath a ’65-73 Stang and see the 1960 Falcon. 😉
Camaro shared some major componentry with the Nova RWD X bodies.
This is how car companies can offer ‘enthusiast’ cars and be profitable.
Check out some time how many expensive cars are rebodied Volkswagen Golf chassis’s–even the Audi R8 is based on a Lamborgini Gallarado
Drove a ’78 V6 powered Camaro once, felt like I was wearing a massive steel leisure suit 🙂 . Give me a Fox any day of the week.
The 1967-1979 Camaros only came with 250 straight sixes sourced from Chevy with traditional Small Blocks available. The Pontiac Firebird had the experimental Sprint OHC L-6 on 1967-69, the Chevy 250 six thereafter and starting in 1977 came equipped with the Buick 231 V6
That was a loooooonnnnngggg time ago, and my mempry ain’t what it once was. Damn glacier beat it in a drag race 😀 !
So nice to see a 79 Cobra–there are lots of Pace Car survivours, but not as many Cobras. To me the year to own a Cobra is 1979, you could get the 302– in 1980 you can only get a 255 V8 and they added the Pace Car fascia, IMHO not an improvement. The 79 Mustang was a huge success, over 350,000 sold from 2 assembly plants–only Camrys and Accords can do that now.
I was a young driver back then and the Camaro and Firebirds really still had their fans who were sick of hearing about downsizing and the death of the V8.
I remember these cars being everywhere when I was a teenager, particularly the mustangs. I always liked the chevys better. Later I drove a blue ’84 Monte Carlo SS, which was ok but no way was I keeping up with those damn 5.0’s, I hated them! Well, time came to find a new car. It had to be a 5 speed, with a little power. With little funds, I was thinking maybe a Z24 cavalier, or a quad4 Olds or something. I ended up with a red ’85 Mustang GT. That car was awesome. Made the Monte feel like a slug. I’ve had many fox mustangs since and yes, they are rattletraps. They don’t handle too well, and God hope you don’t have to stop too quickly. But then that is the fun of driving a fox mustang, wrestling that thing around the road. I’ve been hooked ever since.
This is my ’81 cobra clone
It took me forever to warm up to the Fox Mustang. It looked too much like an econo car when it came out. The tweaks over time, along with a commitment to a proper V-8 engine, along with the changes in the market in everything else available, actually brought me to consider an ’89 LX 5.0 notch in the early ’90s. It was pretty fun on the test drive.
The late second gen Camaro was a relative bargain, especially if you were to consider a “secretary special.” In 1980, my friend’s mom stopped on the way home from our high school at the Chevy dealer to handle somehting on her new ’80 Malibu Classic. There was a 6 cyl / auto / air Camaro on the showroom floor that I recall having a relative bargain sticker price. I don’t recall Chevy promoting the Camaro set up that way, but it sure beat the Monza for looks and general feel. I suppose CAFE meant the Monza was Chevy’s preferred economy car.
My mother had this generation Camaro and I was fortunate to have had the last year Fox body Mustang. So I used to covet my mother’s car and whenever I was fortunate enough to drive it – I got a lot of positive attention!
That said, and based on my personal experiences, the Mustang was a much better car in many ways. Especially as a daily driver, the Camaro was useless. While it was larger than the Mustang, it had acres of wasted inaccessible space. It was designed during an entirely different era, so the Camaro was too low to the road and had only room for two. The trunk could barely fit more than a soft duffle bag. The fit and finish of these cars was typical 1970s era, so after about five years, the Camaro needed to have both doors re-skinned and re-hung. These cars fought rust, even when garaged. Ever change a fuse in one of these cars? I was the only person flexible enough to sit on the ground, then arch my back over the door jam and fit into the space between the driver’s seat and the pedals upside down. While it was a beautiful car, it wasn’t especially useful.
The Fox Mustang was very different. I had the hatch and was able to easily slide my bike into the back of it, with plenty of room to spare. It was a very fast and fun car. All the gages and mechanicals were easy to access and higher quality than the Camaro. It was good to see a lot of the quality problems worked out in this generation Mustang and I had absolutely zero problems with it. While it wasn’t as beautiful a car as the Camaro, driving around in a bright red hatchback with very nice wheels did get its share of attention from single ladies.
So – I would most definitely get another Fox Mustang, and I would definitely not get another Camaro of this generation. I might still be lithe, nimble and young enough to get around the GM car, the Ford is just much more practical and of higher quality.
That’s the take from a guy who had had years with both cars.
I can tell you that it’s amazing what 25 years of automotive development has done. My dad still has an ’88 Mustang GT Convertible. It rides very hard, it’s creaky, but it’s fun. A new Mustang is just light years ahead.
There’s far less difference between my ’65 and Dad’s ’88 than there is between his ’88 and a new one.
I’d still take an older car though, any day of the week. 🙂
The GM H-Special bodies are forgotten and did have the 4 square headlight look first. But, Ford basically brought out an ‘improved Chevy Monza’ and lasted a near lifetime.
For 1980 MY, Mustangs were sold as ‘sporty gas sippers’ instead, with the 255 v8 the top motor. Thank goodness the 1982 HO 302 returned!
Always liked the look of the early Fox Mustangs, especially the segmented tail lights which were seemingly the one heritage nod. They looked crisp and clean, but the aero revisions were less cohesive albeit necessary at the time.
I have always had a fondness for Ford Fox body stuff, specifically the Futura/Z7 coupes and the Mustang/Capri.
I actually own a 1990 notchback with the 2.3L engine… a survivor with low mileage but a couple of bruises. Runs great, turns in good mpg and simple to fix when needed. Always liked the look of these best and it’s a close match to the early Futura/Z7, which are very hard to find these days.
Second gen F cars are real lookers,and they can be made to be cookers. The 1970 thru 73 I think are most pure in their styling but I like them up to the early 80s. These cars are Motorama sexy dream cars. Yeah their space utilization and practicallity are a joke but with the rumble of a warmed V8 they are a dream come true. The 79 Mustang on the other hand was designed as a modern, practical car. Space utilization was much better and a hatchback was available. The Fox stang was developed into a pretty great car especially for the money. The Camaro is the bad girl that you lusted after, the Mustang was the girl next door you married.
By mid 1978 I was thinking about what my next new car purchase would be. It had to be sporty, fast and somewhat practical. Luggage space was important as it this point in my life I would take to the road on a weekend or vacation.
By mid-1978 enough spy shots had been published of the upcoming Mustang. I passed on my favorite Pony car in 1974 because…well you know about the Mustang II. Enjoying a higher income at this point in my single life I gave serious consideration to a Camaro Z28 in black without the lower stripes. Looked so cool without them. The the first pics of the new Fox body Mustang came out and suddenly the Camaro was a Dinosaur. Yes, I wanted something nimble, good handling and a small V6.
Long story short I could not factory order a 2.8 litre V6 and four speed manual transmission. No way I was going to get a fuel thirsty 5.0 V8 so I later got a killer deal on a turbocharged Cobra fastback with leather, TRX suspension, 4-speed manual, AM/FM Cassette deck and block heater. A $7400.00 price tag, about a thousand more than I wanted to spend. Fabulous car, well built, great handling, quick (even with some turbo-lag) and comfortable on long trips. Downside, poor fuel consumption (20 mpg) on the highway staying off the turbo has much as possible. The smallish fuel tank made for some stress in parts of British Columbia where service stations were scarce. But I enjoyed that Mustang every time I got behind the wheel. Months after taking delivery, some aftermarket pieces were added and my Cobra was a a distinctive cruiser standing apart from all other Mustangs on the streets.
A wife, baby and parental responsibility lead to the car becoming transportation for somebody else. I do not regret my decision back in 1979. Nor do many other former 1979 Mustang owners I’m sure.
I like these early ‘4 eye’ Mustangs much better than the ’87 aeroe’d ones. That blunted off front clip comes off looking like its been punched in the face and has a fat lip. Its just…swollen. And these 2nd gen F bodies seem to be worlds better than the 3rd gens. Much more tightly screwed together all around.
I read and re-read that Z-28 brochure over and over, planning how I would option my ’80 ‘Z-28 for my 16th birthday. 350, 4 speed, high ratio rear end, A/C, am-fm 8 track delco. I don’t remember if positraction was available or not.
The ’69 I did get came with the 2 barrel 327 and PG and undoubtedly a 3:00 rear, as it would barely squeal the tires on wet pavement. Handling was much worse than the 2nd gen, too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/23/us/foss-lake-mystery-solved/
At last you didn’t drive it into a lake and disappear for 43 years!
I always thought the second generation Camaro /Firebird did well in their day because they were the last survivors…they took ALL of the traditional fast car market of the time…and the 79 Mustang was what GM would have done with the Monza platform if they had axed the F body in 73 or 74 and then saw a muscle car demand coming back again. the funny thing at the time is all the buff books drooled over the Turbo 4 SVO… but everybody bought the 5.0 GT.
I have always found my 1981 Trans Am Nascar to be a more solid feeling substantial cars with more width than the 1979 onward Fairmont Mustangs which felt cheaper, tinnier and cruder. I also found it amusing that my far larger 301 turbo got about the same highway fuel mileage as the 2.3 turbo four in the 1979-80 Mustangs. My buddy had a 1979 with said 2.3 turbo and he always complained about the pinging and poor mileage despite throwing good money after bad tuning it up.
Those NA 2300s were woefully underpowered, especially with automatic. Times have changed for sure; even the slowest modern car is adequate in traffic. When car magazines call a zero to 60 time of eight seconds or more “slow,” you know the pervading mindset has been altered.
As I reflected earlier this year on this site (https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1979-mustang-turbo-the-old-all-new-mustang/) my experience with the then “all new” Fox Mustang was a mixed bag. That said, compared to the contemporary American performance cars on the market at the time, I felt and still feel the Mustang drove and handled far better than the competition as long as all the parts stayed and played well together, something that was not a given. Yes, it was obvious that the interior was the product of what happened to be in the parts bin and could work with minimal modification, but it was relatively clean and functional (excepting the lack of any ability to adjust the rake of the seatback, an option included even in my 1966 VW Beetle). I think the exterior was new and refreshing, certainly more forward looking than our nostalgia based styling trends today.
Whenever I see this style Camaro, it also reminds of the Trans Am Burt Reynolds drove in ” Smokey And The Bandit “. One of my favorite movies !!