Photos from the Cohort by Slant Six.
I would assume that today’s find is basically a unicorn by now: a 2.8L-equipped early third-gen ‘Stang. The only year the Cologne V6 was offered in the new Fox-body platform, after being part of the Mustang II repertoire since ’74 during those energy-challenged 1970s. And from the looks of things, the old 2.8L still apparently powers this baby blue ‘Stang that seems straight out of the Ford showroom.
Like many other Mustangs, the clean and radically new 1979 Fox body generation has provided much to talk about since it first appeared. That said, two things can be stated about it with utter certainty. First, it embraced the upcoming 1980s in a way that was unthinkable a few years prior, especially for a Ford. Then, it’s the only Mustang that freed itself from any stylistic links to its vaunted 1964 origin. No first-gen-like side scoops or other references anywhere on its body.
The end of the 1970s was a rather challenging time for about-to-go-broke Ford. There’s nothing like a reckoning to embrace a new self, and the 1979 Mustang reflects that period of reinvention perfectly. The model’s clean origami styling was very au courant, in keeping with the guidance of stylist Jack Telnack (who had just served as VP of Design in Ford of Europe).
However, for some the rational aerodynamic language of these early Fox-body ‘Stangs was not expressive enough, particularly when seen in hindsight. Still, the cars responded to the spirit of the times and sold like hotcakes.
Unlike the usually hot-rodded variety, what we got here is none other than a nice commuter ‘Stang. Not carrying the lowly Lima engine, nor refurbished with a boisterous Small Block. Instead, a nicely optioned one with clean and tastefully sorted aesthetics; in late-70s idiom of course.
So while horsepower is not its mettle, it’s the kind of remnant that speaks of the Mustang’s sweeping allure. From intimidating Pony to disguised fuel saver, to stylish daily commuter.
As usual, the Fox bodies came in many tasty combos, a Mustang specialty (about those, links below). And on those combo options for early ’79 the 2.8L V6 Cologne was found, the mill presumably powering today’s find.
That upgraded 2.8 60-degree V6 had made its first appearance in ’74 on the Capri. At the time, while not commended for its power –cold numbers didn’t improve much over the 2.0 4-cyl.– it did get kudos for improving the car’s driveability by a good factor. It soon found its way into the Mustang II (and other US Fords) and would remain in the model’s repertoire until 1979, the only year it would be available on the Fox body. Its removal from the US lineup the result of unexpected higher demand of the mill by Ford of Europe.
So, while not necessarily the most desirable of combos nowadays, this 2.8 is gotta be a rare one… I mean, what’s the likely survival rate of a setup like this 45 years later?
In keeping with the rest of this ‘Stang’s demeanor, shifting is by the 3-speed automatic. And the interior in this 2.8 looks as well preserved as the exterior.
Once again, the sunroof shows this was a well-optioned car. And the painted seal rubber around the hatchback gate shows the car’s shiny paint is the result of a respray.
Period correct alloy-looking wheel covers, along those whitewalls, do give this ‘Stang that full late-70s stylish look. In a Charlie’s Angels sort of way.
That clean sloping rear is the car’s most delicate piece of styling. Perhaps the reason just about ninety percent of Mustangs from the 1980s carried spoilers?
So were these too dainty for you? Or did they provide the usual ideal mix of Mustang allure? I do know they have a bit of a mixed legacy (Those ’80s looks!). But as a close friend of mine who loves anything Mustang related said: “Without the Fox Body ‘Stangs, there might not be a Mustang today”. Of course, he owns a ’84, so he’s not necessarily unbiased. But that ’84 has certainly given him gobs of high-horsepower fun at discount prices.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1979 Ford Mustang – A Fresh Start
Curbside Classic: 1979-1982 Ford Mustang – A Clean Break
Wow what a find! I think the 2.8 V6 Mustang was probably the sweet spot between the less than stellar 2.3L turbo and the then flaccid 5.0L that was available at the time. The powder blue paint is a reminder of choices we no longer seem to have and I frankly miss the athletic styling of these four-eyed Fox body Mustangs.
As an aside, those are not alloy wheels. Those are wheel covers that were used on practically every Fox body from the Fairmont’s debut in 1977 to roughly about 1983.
Thanks for that detail about the wheel covers. It’s updated now.
Strangely, my 1990 model had those type of wheel covers. They really didn’t mesh with the facelifted design. Almost as bad an anachronism as the Pinto 4.
Agreed. Seeing this in that color with those wheels, if ya squint, it looks like a Fairmont. (My mother had a blue wagon).
Also, I dated a girl (in 80s) whose 1st car was a white 79 Mustang /Tan (light brown) interior, with the sluggish 4 cyl /auto Combo, and not the hatch, but the Trunk version, which made the car feel smaller inside (well, I guess it was small inside). Yikes.
I saw the car again a few days ago near the antique shop in town. My guess is it belongs to a local that consigns a booth at the antique store. It is refreshing to find a fox like this that has not been hacked and made into a drag racer with an LS engine!
Yes – absolutely refreshing to see one in this kind of condition. I didn’t think any of these regular, older Fox Mustangs existed any more. The only thing better would be if it had wire wheel covers! Thanks for photographing this one.
Yes For Sure! If I only had the time and mental capacity to write about everything I find and photograph…. alas I don’t, so I take the pictures, and the sages here at CC put well-thought-out and crafted stories alongside the images.
Outstanding find, and photos, Slant Six. A genuine timepiece, that fully harkens back to memories of 1979, and the introduction of the Fox Mustang. The colour is so reflection of the early Fox Mustang. Interesting, that body coloured mirrors were an option. A sign of the times.
A strong memory of the early Fox Mustangs, was the prominence of the notchback version, in Ford marketing. They were given equal status to the hatchback, on many dealer lots, I recall. I liked the Mercedes association in its appearance. Came across much better, than the tacky Granada.
Unless equipped with the TRX wheels, I never felt these first Fox Mustangs looked expensive. I felt most looked plainly cheap, with the popular base styled steel wheels, and black plastic centres. These turbine wheel covers, already popular on the Fairmont, also looked economy, and inexpensive. And mass produced. And that grille looked plasticky. A small detail, but that white double pinstripe embedded within the black plastic bodyside molding, really helped give these Mustangs a greater sense of luxury. They would have lacked otherwise.
Though the Fairmont and Fox Mustang enjoyed strong sales, I felt they generally did not look substantial. I was indifferent to their styling. Many (most?), exuded cheapness to me then.
As a teen, seeing rows of Fairmonts and Fox Mustangs on dealer lots equipped with these low budget-looking wheels, was a significant turnoff then. Aided in this devaluing of their looks, by their power blue, bright tan, or yellow paint jobs. lol
I would happily drive this exact car, wheels and all. <3
Joe, so would I.
This car brings up a styling theme that I miss, which are the styled steel wheels. Several of my old cars had them, including the Super Stock wheels on my 1972 442. The most recent example I can think of styled steel wheels are the ones on 4th gen Camaro. It was a nice reminder back to the days that it seemed that every Camaro had styled steel wheels.
I was delighted/relieved then, when Ford started to look heavily to Ford of Europe for the basis of their future styling themes. For everything from dashboards, to sheet metal, and wheels/wheel covers.
Yes. My 89 Beretta had styled steelies and they looked good. Way better than straight steelies with a poverty cap.
At the time, I used to think nobody could make a small car dashboard, or wheels, look as cheap as Ford. Plus, still have cars like the LTD II, Pinto, and Granada, floating around prominently.
Ford exuded solid Jekyll and Hyde vibes for me then. 🙂
Swoon. I am in love. There was a whole stretch of time for me maybe thirty years ago when I remember poking fun at look and vibe of the early Foxes as looking too much like a generic compact car (by the standards of the ’90s).
Within the past several years, my pendulum has swung fully over to really appreciating the aesthetics of the 1979 – ’82 models as looking fresh and tastefully restrained. Some combinations of wheels / colors / etc. make some more obviously appealing than others and it’s a shame those beautiful TRX wheels had to be metric and cost prohibitive to find tires for today, but I’d love a ’79 Ghia. Make mine either a hatchback or notchback in chamois.
My 1:18 scale ’79 Mustang die cast model is one of my favorite acquisitions from 2023. And yes, it’s from Charlie’s Angels.
For me, it wasn’t until the 1982 Mustang GT with the TRX wheels, that I felt this gen Mustang finally looked like a mature, masculine, and genuine, enthusiast’s car. The improved looks (and image), this car badly needed. The earlier King Cobra looked silly. IMO, the hood scoop, air dam, driving lights, Recaro seats, colour schemes, stance, and nose design, brought it into the big leagues. As so many earlier Fox Mustangs seemed to me, as emaciated as the Fairmont/Zephyr. Remember, so many lame four cylinder 1979 through 1982 Mustangs. I could see AMC’s early logic in comparing their Spirit, to the Mustang.
One of my all-time favourite Mustangs.
In 1979 the Mustang had a Cobra version (the previous-gen King Cobra was dead) with (IIRC) the turbo Lima or the emasculated 5.0L. That version of the Cobra got updated in 1980 with the same body kit as Ford used for the revived GT in 1982 (see attached 1980 Cobra photo). The 1979-81 models had quite the list of features, including Recaro seats, SEV Marchal fog (80-81 only) lamps and the previously mentioned Michelin TRX tire and wheel combination available.The 1979 Cobra did not have the air dam the 1980-81 had, but had the hood scoop and the spoiler on the hatch. Also, they shared the equally lurid graphics package among all three years. The biggest thing that Ford PR emphasized at the time was the rejuvenated 5.0L motor (with 2bbl carb!) and not much else. At least they made the mostly monochromatic exterior without the optional graphics package that made even 19 year-old me wince when I first saw it.
I remember all the ‘Boss is Back’ coverage they received in 1982. Even if the components were there, it hugely elevated the Mustang’s image for me, and thousands of others.
Excellent marketing is everything. Ford presented the existing components, and packaging, better. I absolutely feel association with the Cobra package (also tied to the Mustang II), was damaging to a mature image for the ’80’s.
No question, the monochromatic paint, limited paint palette, and lack of tacky graphics, played a huge role in presenting a more appealing product to adult performance car enthusiasts. Timing was everything.
Oh yes, that’s rare. One of the very interesting things about the 1979 Mustang is that (I think) it’s quite unusual for a manufacturer to offer BOTH a straight six AND a V-6 in the same car in the same year. I can think of several cars that offered an inline or vee 6 over the course of a model run, but not in the same year.
I guess Ford wasn’t yet ready to give up on that old “Falcon Six” quite yet!
Rich, you note that the 2.8 didn’t provide much of a power increase over the 1.6 four cylinder in the Capri. By 1974 when the 2.8 was first offered in the US, the approximately 65 (net) HP 1600 Kent had been dropped in favor the ~90 HP 2300 “Pinto” overhead cam engine. The V6 had 105 HP which was quite a bit more, but as you say not a huge increase. However compared to the 1600, the V6 had a lot more power both on paper and on the road.
Did those Mustang wheels actually have removable wheel covers, or were those Polycast wheels, a brief trend where the outer decorative plastic was molded onto the steel rim underneath?
I am pretty sure those are plastic wheel covers. We had many a futura and fairmont from the early ’80’s MY through Dad’s used car lot when I was a lad.. I can recall many of the 4 lug’ed foxes with these wheel covers.
Like this one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fodenalpha/49290548117/in/photolist-2i6CWGv-2o368uZ-2oKkchb-2intSgC-2iu3gpC-2jVs4J3-2mSNU23-gbR8JL-2mU1sWJ-DuBXgh-AT9ScR-2mSQ92b-2o37yCv-2au2dyb-2kdv2eq-2mENhYv-2n33329-5EYpRK-MA9R8J-2oi1GtC-Z4Eiu3-2iM4sqT-2nrnv7W-JbxnXa-Gt2yGv-2jxkPdh-Bvttbf-2k6XQ4L-8UxC2o-2bigrUS-2hz7SX5-2p8bEPQ-2k6XQ8y-2oQ1QX7-2mjr8Pt-87n5k4-LW68Cm-2bPSQoS-N2v8bP-24uXrgM-2hGNFcE-2bnyYMi-8UxBJJ-2eE2tXg-5Duq2c-2jGApuX-29ZnVYS-2opYiFX-87qefq-6MwrA4
I am not sure it they were on the mercury Zephyers of the era as well?
My ’78 Zephyr Z-7 had those.
Those wheel covers were on almost all Fox bodied Fords during that time. I was somewhat surprised by someone further up the string stating that they appeared on his 1990 Mustang.
I had a 1990 Mercury Topaz that with the polycast wheels on it. While they looked nice when new, eventually the silver paint wore off in patches and they looked horrible. It’s not like you could easily remove the plastic portion and re-paint them… When you think about it, the idea of gluing a blob of plastic on an otherwise normal steel wheel just to make it look pretty is really pointless.
I’m quite sure he meant to say “2.0 four”, not “1.6 four”, as the latter was vastly slower than both the 2.0 and 2.6/2.8 V6. And the 1.6 was only available on the first year 1971 US capri, and relatively few were sold.
Here’s a 0-60 comparison chart from R&T’s review of the 2.6 Capri V6, which they raved about, even if its 0-60 time wasn’t all that faster than the previous 2.0, but then tightening emission controls played a role in that. A current 2.0 would likely have been slower.
Yes, that was a typo. The text is amended now.
The 2.6 V6 coexisted in the US Capri with the 2.0 four, but when the 2.8 came along the base engine was bumped up to the 2300 four.
I had those wheels on an 86 Mustang (4 cyl, but a standard). I remember when I 1st felt the wheel “ribs”, you could bend them a little as it was some whacky rubber coating. I remember joking with a friend about my Ford w/ the “Rubber Rims”..
🙂
Amazingly preserved Mustang, I love it! It’s incredibly original looking. All except for that 2.8 badge, of course.
I agree with posters who say the early Fox body Stang has become more appealing. The clean and minimalist styling is really tasteful. It’s just a shame they had to endure the Malaise-era powertrains. Modern Mustangs are not so clean looking, but obviously immeasurably more functional.
I grew up when these were new and I liked them then and I like them now. Never liked American car styling with its ostentatious, baroque and useless flourishes and overhangs – this car just looked logical, clean and sporty with that wedge shaped grille. I did like the previous version of the Camaro but maybe that’s because James Rockford drove an Elan.
For years I’ve argued that the current “Jessica Rabbit version of the 69-70″ Mustang” is long overdue for a rethink and the Fox bodies are have been “old enough” for a while to make a good case for a “new retro look”
If anything, the Mack E- already a hatch- could’ve used some Fox-body cues and not simply “horse logos, three-bar taillights, it’s a Mustang!!!”
Ah, memories. Fun piece… thanks!
My then-girlfriend now-wife bought a new 1979 notchback Mustang just after graduating college. Specs were unimpressive, but so many cars were in those days. 2.3L 4-cyl with 4-speed manual. I recall 1st gear as a tad low, 2nd/3rd were workhorses, and 4th extremely tall. Any hill required a downshift. Acceleration was just adequate, but a friend’s car with the same car and automatic was unsafely glacial. Her splurges were A/C, AM-FM stereo, and all-season radials… Goodyear Tiempo’s had just introduced the now-common third type.
I recall thinking the 2.8 V-6 would have been a much better motor than the 2.3. It was a bit rare, but if memory serves I think it may have been automatic-only.
The car handled well for the day, but it had a turning circle that felt larger than a Peterbilt’s. An odd ergonomic was interior door latches mounted near floor-level on the doors.
She sold it just before we got married and took over the Mazda 626 that I’d bought. I went back to my ’74 Opel Sportwagon.
Was the 2.8L Mustang available with a 4-speed? I’m going to guess only with the automatic, similar to the same engine combo in the Pinto.
Probably just as well since Ford seemed to have issues figuring out the gear ratios in the manuals. I vividly recall that the 4-speed that came with the 302 was described by Car & Driver as being like a 5-speed with a missing third gear. I think it wouldn’t be until 1985 that the Mustang got a 5-speed with proper gearing.
And the 5-speed that arrived in late 1980 for the 2.0L was a weird one, too. IIRC, it had a 4-speed shift pattern but a dog-leg over and down for 5th gear.
My wife had a brand new 79 Stang that was red. Her dad had a black stripe painted down the center. It must have been a four ( she doesn’t remember ) because when I met her, she had already traded it for an 83 GL hatchback. When I asked about that car, she was quick to say
“ It has a six, a V6!” Of course, it was the horrible Essux.
I’ve written about it here. We then leased a brand new 86 coupe with the Lima 4.
Overall, she/ we liked those cars. It seemed that Ford had done a decent job of moving forward with them.
The only reason for not getting another was simple;
I wanted a GT stick and she can’t drive a stick. So we moved on.
I do rather like the featured car, as it is certainly well preserved
Reminds me of my Aunt Jackie’s 79 Mustang, except hers was in dark blue. She got it new. I was always excited to ride in it, even if it did rattle and squeak a LOT more than a new car should.
Sure, these didn’t have any of the classic Mustang styling cues, except long hood/short deck and a small rear passenger window. But I remember well when these came out and the car just looked SO RIGHT.
The ’79 Fox-bodied Mustang actually weighed a bit less than the Mustang II that it replaced, in spite of being significantly larger. The weight reduction resulted in a bit better straight-line performance than the Mustang II. Unfortunately, when first introduced in the fall of 1978, the 2.8 liter V6 was initially only available with the 3-speed automatic transmission in the ’79 Mustang and its Mercury Capri twin. Fairly late in the 1979 model run the 2.8 Liter V6 became available with the 4-speed manual transmission, but only a handful of ’79 Mustangs and Capris were equipped with it. The rare ’79 Mustang and Capri equipped with the 2.8 V6 and a 4-speed manual transmission seems to have been highly thought of providing a supposedly perfect balance of performance, handling and good gas mileage.
Younger son’s first car was a well-used ’84 Mustang – fairly base model with the four cylinder/four speed combo, no air, crank windows and plaid cloth seat material left over from the groovy 70s, baby. It was originally owned by a homeschooling family with five daughters, all of whom learned to drive on this car.
Son was going through a somewhat irresponsible phase while he owned this car, and it spent almost as much time on my trailer as it did being driven.
Pre-OBD, we had to use a jumper wire and watch lights flash on the dashboard for diagnostics. Worked, too!
Can I ruffle some feathers and say that it’s ripe for an engine swap?
But not for a 302, as would be the likely candidate. I would stay in the Cologne family, and consider a 4.0L SOHC engine. With 210hp, it has similar output to the later 5.0 Foxes, but you could still rightfully say that it has a Cologne V6.
Whether or not you agree with that, hopefully we can all agree that the early Fox body Mustangs are some great looking cars.
I would not swap that one at all, because you never see one of these. But if you were to swap it I would try the Ford Barra as an exercise.
It’s a shame it is an automatic. I recall reading the introductory articles for the Fox Mustang, and the 4-speed V6 was the best combination of performance and economy. Nothing else was much quicker, but they all used more fuel while spreading their malaise. I could have sworn that the V6s were sticks while the flaccid Falcon I6s were automatics, but I guess not. The V6 4-speed actually seemed like a reasonable alternative to various FWD coupes like Sciroccos and TC3s at the time.
Thanks to power sucking emission controls the period Cologne 2.8V6 had the same hp as the Euro 2ltr Pinto engine… 101hp. . Even the 2.3 V6 made 115 hp in Euro spec. Rating for the non injected Euro 2.8 was 125hp .
This is a spectacular find in terms of color, equipment and engine, all in excellent condition for a 45-year old car. To the younger members of the Curbside community, this Mustang is close to what most people drove back then, not a tricked out Boss 302. This well-equipped car is also a huge step up from the long rows of 4-cylinder strippers clogging the Ford dealer lots of the times, all in unappealing shades of tan (or “chamois”, in Ford-speak), yellow, or brown. The aura of cheapness always bedeviled the Fox-body Mustangs for me, particularly the interiors, making the much-improved mid-80s versions a non-starter when I started to buy cars of my own.
Influenced by the Car and Driver editorial staff, I really liked the 1978 Fairmont/Zephyr and 1979 Mustang/Capri when they first came out, believing them to be the first American Ford products worthy of my attention and respect at the beginning of my driving years. In fact, along with the downsized GM A, B, and C-bodies and the first Omni/Horizon twins from Chrysler, the Fox-bodies, in spite of reliability issues, some poor material choices, and sometimes indifferent assembly quality, all represented a clean-sheet break from the past, making the late Seventies an exciting time to be a young car enthusiast.
The 2.8 also found its way into the Ranger/Bronco II and Aerostar, along with the Sierra/Scorpio (Merkur in the US) throughout the 1980s. Like the Fox-body, the Aerostar only had this engine for its first year (1986) but at least a little more horsepower was available by this point (115); alas, the 3.0L Vulcan V6 from the Taurus took its place within the same year.
A unicorn this Mustang certainly is–I had to double-check to be sure those weren’t 5.0 badges on the front fenders! And yes, NO styling cues from any previous Mustangs whatsoever, other than the miniaturized galloping horse emblem on the hood.
It’s also interesting to note that from 1987-93 (and again with the current-generation Mustang, along with the previous one beginning with the 2018 refresh), there were NO 6-cylinder Mustangs: you either chose the economy 4-banger or the performance V8!
This would be a great addition to my list of foxbody cars I owned. I started out with a 1980 chamois glow fastback with the turbo four, stick shift and TRX suspension. I later pulled a 1980 Fairmont Futura two tone red and white out of a barn, it had the regular 4 cyl and also stick shift on the floor. Very slow car with bad mileage and the handling was disappointing. All my foxes were European spec which explains this strangely optioned Fairmont.
I now own a very well equipped 1979 Zephyr Z7 coupe with a 302 and handling package. I’m the second owner, its almost entirely original and in great condition. It’s even bi-fuel as it can run on both gasoline and propane. I mostly drive on propane due to the cost of gasoline here.
Very nice car here in a perfect color for it. I too am very happy it is unmolested.
The Pony emblem on the hood threw me for a minute… I thought that any horse emblems, or throwback cues did not exist for 1979, except for all the horse logos plastered all over the Indy Pace car versions.
But that hood has a detent for it that can be seen right there in the close-up.
As to the wheel covers: Having had a ‘79 Futura, I’m glad my car had the base aluminum wheel covers for that car. While I like the styling of these, they were indeed plastic, and seemingly on every Fox body car out there from this Mustang to the Zephyr Z7.
I owned a 79 Mustang Pace Car as my first car. It certainly looked the part with the marshal fog lights air dam, rear spoiler, cowl hood, TRX wheels, and Recaro seats. Unfortunately it was saddled with the 2.3 Turbo and 4 speed. When it was running good, it was just OK for its time, making 131hp. The 2.8 I think was good for 105hp. I know the 5.0 of that year gets a lot of crap for only having 140hp, but it was still good for mid 8’s to 60mph and a quarter mile in the 16s. That was moving in 1979! It wasn’t until 82 when things got cooking, and then every year got better.
Don’t slight the 2.3!
I had a 79 with the 2.8L Cologne V-6. Paired with the infamous Ford Variable Venturi Carb.
I remain convinced this was the absolute worst engine FoMoCo ever put in a vehicle, and the late year shift back to the tried and true 200CID In-line Six was a major improvement.
I’m sure it didn’t help that it was 9 years old when I bought it, and every last vacuum line was starting to dry rot. It also didn’t help when Mom warped the heads trying to jump start her Escort. But all in all, the 2.8 was just awful.