The 1979 Mustang. From the beginning, the Mustang’s life was charmed. Each major generational change coincided with a big surge in sales for America’s favorite pony car. And once again, Ford managed to bring America the right new pony car at the right time.
I saw this car in August of 2011. It was for sale by someone living in my neighborhood. I knew immediately that I had to pull over to shoot it, and I did. It went away within a couple of days. And I am not sure I have seen a 79 (or close to it) Mustang since.
So why has it taken me nearly nine years to write about it? It’s like this: You know how there are cars that are significant and important? I knew that this was one of them. I also knew that I didn’t really like them much when they came out. Still don’t. So here we are, this Mustang and I, still in a sort of standoff after all these years. OK Mustang, you win.
Ford (as both a company and as a Division within it) has had more “watershed years” than most others. 1928 was one, when the Model A replaced the venerable T. 1932 with the first V8. 1949 with the first really new model in a generation (or two, depending on how we count). And then there was 1965, where we saw both a new Mustang in its first full year and a new “standard” Ford which included the trendsetting LTD.
1979 is another of those watershed years in my mind, with a lot of echo from 1965. Once again, we had brand new versions of the company’s two most important vehicles – LTD and Mustang. Who knew then how important both of these would be for the next twenty or more years.
Here was my problem in 1979, one which still lingers: I didn’t like what Ford was doing. Oh, I understood that some really good things were happening with chassis dynamics, and I was on board with that. So much else about the cars, though, just left me cold.
Were they too “European” for my tastes? Possibly. The cold, knife-edge styling was something I found off-putting. The stark interior aesthetic was looking forward instead of back, but I found it cold. Little things like the stalk to operate the horn and the oddball way the steering wheel tilted (at the wheel instead of at the base of the column) were touches I found disagreeable. This wasn’t the Ford I had grown up with and come to love. Perhaps this was one of the reasons I had become a big ChryslerDude – Chrysler was providing a more traditional car that I found more comfortable. If you could keep it out of the shop, anyway. And for what it’s worth, I didn’t like the ’79 LTD either.
I knew that I was an outlier – I have often found myself outside of the mainstream. And the mainstream loved the ’79 Mustang, with 369,936 of them finding buyers that year. Did you know that after the model’s initial 1965-67 megasplash and the 1974 “Right car, Right time” phenomenon, the ’79 was the highest production year?
Before looking it up, I would have suspected that the models from the mid to late 1980s would have matched it, but they come nowhere close. Even with the strong economy of the 80’s and the constant attention from the motoring press, the Fox body Mustang only cracked the 200K production barrier three times (1986, 88 and 89). In fact, even the strongest year of the “Peak Mustang GT” years (1986, with 224,410 cars produced) could not match the nearly 277,000 copies built in the terrible horrible no good very bad recession year of 1980.
But hindsight tells us that the Fox platform upon which this Mustang was based turned out to be the perfect starting point. For starters, the fully unitized Fox cars always felt tighter and stiffer than the somewhat jiggly body-on-frame Panther platform cars. And they were certainly mechanically stouter than the front-wheel drive platforms that would follow.
Could 1979 and the two or three years after have been the very end of the Mustang-As-Mainstream car? It is hard to argue against the superiority of the post-1985 versions with their ever-improving 5.0 V8s, but the basic four and six cylinder “secretary specials” were becoming increasingly outclassed by the fast-improving competition for the segment, no small number of which were coming from Japan.
Another way this car was very much back to the concept of the original 1965 model was the way Ford would offer a wide array of choices. Coupe or fastback, four, six or V8 power, and a host of options and packages that ran from an economy car with some style to a fairly potent (for the day, anyway) hoss that was probably a better road car than the Mustang had ever been. Ford knew that it was an important car when it made its play to pace the Indianapolis 500 race for the first time since the 1968 Torino GT.
I can look back now and see a purity of concept in these cars that was lacking by 1985 when I seriously considered buying a new Mustang GT. Though I must admit that I find these wheels to be an improvement over the choices offered originally on these early Foxstangs.
Yes, there is some version of a horse like this on every single page of the ’79 Mustang brochure.
This car did not make me want to buy it when I saw if for sale in the neighborhood in 2011 and does not today make me wish I could find it again. But I am glad that I stopped to photograph it because it is a great opportunity to think about the Mustang and how it has been an influence in ways that have nothing to do with production figures.
This generation seems to differ from the earlier ones in the way stock versions seem to be unloved. I have never seen it since, and have to suspect that whomever bought it stuffed a 5.0 into it and turned it into a prequal of the notchback Mustang LX from the end of the original Fox body era. But I hope not. It is nice to look at the original concept for one of Ford’s most important products of all time, and to appreciate it for what it is. And for what it was – among the most successful reboots in Ford’s history.
Further Reading:
1979-82 Mustang – William Stopford
1979 Mustang Indy Pace Car Replica – Jason Shafer
And worst seats ever. Seat backs were not adjustable for rake. Instead the whole seat was moved on a semi circular rack, which tended to rust and break through the floor panel. Unbelievable crap. And afaIk never ever done again by any car maker.
We only had that Mustang for a few month and all I remember is this fail.
Did the first three years of fox body Mustangs use the same basic seats as the Pinto and Mustang II? Looks that way, with the high back seats standard and the optional low back seats having that same odd plastic back with the knee cutouts for the rear seat passengers.
Mom had a 79. I had an 83 and 84. The 79 seats lacked lumbar support. By 84, the seats were relatively decent.
But Ford rode the styling too long. Instead of a complete re-style, it received several fascia changes and a very tasteless effort to differentiate the GT in 1987 with acres of cladding. That 87 freshening also grafted Tempo-like front lamps, making the car look more plebeian… certainly more plebeian in LX form.
Throughout the 79-93 model run, I despised the Fairmont-like door frames…. preferring a true hardtop design. At least the door frames were blacked-out eventually.
You could avoid those frames by getting the T-tops available on the earlier ones.
Wow – I had never noticed that before! I knew these came with T tops, and I knew Mustangs had upper door frames. I just never thought about those two things at the same time to reconcile them.
My favorite Mustang T-tops are the rare ’87-88 models when they went to the larger rear side flush-mounted glass (covering a same-size window opening, plus the area were the louvers used to be) which mated well with the unframed front windows giving it a hardtop look
It was Fairmont based. The drivetrain was Mustang two/Fairmont and Pinto derived.
I agree totally about the Ford interiors at the time. Not that GM and Chrysler offered anything substantially different, but every Ford I rode in at the time just looked and felt really cheap and thrown together. I had a friend in high school (early ’80s) who had a ’79 Mustang and it was just garbage. Rattles, squeaks, and rust abounded. The back seat was a torture chamber of discomfort. I also never could understand why Ford thought it a good idea to put the horn on the stalk and also make only the steering wheel tilt rather than the column. It almost seemed like the tilt wheel got more in the way than less.
I love the performance stats from the ’79 TV ad: “0-50 in 7.1 seconds” in big bold print….then in really small print below “average of 10 Ford tests on 3 cars”. LOL.
Not only did they arbitrarily use 0-50 instead of the more widely utilized 0-60, but then watered it down even further with additional criteria. Gotta love marketing folks sometimes!
Ford wasn’t alone in using this; this was in the middle of the Malaise Era when power output was low and the national speed limit was 55MPH – there was really no point in advertising a (slow) 0-60 run.
Volkswagen used 0-50 in their advertising, too…I think it was for the Rabbit. But really, I honestly think they all did it because they thought it would sucker people into thinking the cars were faster than they really were…never mind “social responsibility” which seldom is found in corporate advertising.
I wonder what was the last ad that specified 0-50 times? I can think of this Dodge Daytona ad from 1988, but I bet there’s a few others out there from the late ’80s or early ’90s.
Well, the National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL, 55 mph) was modified starting in 1987 (completely repealed in 1995) to allow speeds up to 65 mph on some limited access roads, so my guess would be that, indeed, 1988 was the final year for the inane 0-50 times cited in advertising.
Oh My God
I remember crawling west at 55 mph thru Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Ten to twelve hours was as long as my folks would drive in a day (which I still adhere to unless my destination is just an hour or two away) and that meant a trip which used to take two days now took three. And any money saved on gas (mileage declines about 15-20% when you are cruising at 70 instead of 55) was spent on an extra night in a hotel and and one more days worth of road food on a trip from Arkansas to California to visit relatives.
Ugh. malaise era indeed, in every way possible
The ’79 had those unique low-mounted interior door handles. Does anyone have any firsthand experience with them, and were they really that awful to operate?
Time has given me a real appreciation for the first few years of the Fox-platform Mustang. By the time I had owned my (refreshed) ’88 in the early ’90s, the ’79 looked a lot like a generic compact car. In 2020, though, I can thoroughly appreciate Ford’s restrained approach to this car’s styling – the only element of which I don’t totally love is the high-ish cowl (which I understand was a hardpoint that was changed by Jack Telnack and his team to give more of a slope to the hood).
And the generic version of Steve Miller’s “Swingtown” in that commercial makes me chuckle every time. LOL
A guy on my track team in high school had a ’79 Ghia hatchback (in decent shape, in Michigan, in the mid-’90s!). I remember riding in it a few times, thinking the door handles were strange, but certainly not a deal breaker or anything. My dad still has an ’88 GT convertible, and the door handles are certainly more convenient than those on the ’79.
I had one or two early Fox rentals (the one I remember was a Capri) but I have no recollection of the door handles. The rest of the car was disappointingly generic, and despite the hype didn’t seem like a huge improvement over a Pinto or Mustang II except for the viability and airy cockpit feel.
I bought a 79 Mustang Cobra with the TRX tire and wheel combo and turbo 2.3 with four-speed manual.
It had the low-back buckets which were very comfortable on long trips. The low interior door handles were never an issue, in fact I found it just as convenient to drop my left arm down to open the driver’s door than move it up.
I’ve owned a few Fox Mustangs over the years and liked all of them. Now if I could just find another…
In addition to the low-mounted inside door release, there was one other subtle but unique bit on the ’79s – different rear deck lids without a small built-in spoiler lip (seen on the yellow car in the brochure; the feature car is wearing a 1980 trunk lid). Same thing on hatchbacks. Some cars got a third differentiator – a chrome “2.8” callout on the fender on cars with the Cologne V6 in the style of the much more famous 5.0 badge. Short supply led to those being dropped partway through the first model year with the less impressive 3.3L straight six taking over. Evidently, the 3.3 didn’t warrant a fender badge.
“different rear deck lids”
Wow, something else I never noticed about these. I was assuming this was a 79 based on the for-sale sign in the window, but perhaps not.
It does have the ’79-exclusive ankle-level inside door releases though, so I’m guessing it’s a 79 that had some rear body damage sometime in the intervening decades, by which time the 80-93 replacement decklids were much more readily available.
That little spoiler lip was pointed out in one of the car mags I read, probably the Car & Driver “charting the changes” feature in the annual new car issue since I was a subscriber. I doubt I would have noticed it myself, but once I knew about it I couldn’t unsee the shorter height of the 1979 design.
Something else that may have went hand-in-hand with the ‘ankle handles’ exclusive to the ’79 Mustang might be the door lock plungers located in the front of the armrests (you can just see the tip of one). When Ford went back to the normal location of the door handles the next year, I think they also returned to the normal location of the lock plungers on the top rear of the door sill, too.
The whole thing was an interesting experiment but I would imagine focus groups determined quite quickly that if the unorthodox location wasn’t expressly disliked, no one was particularly fond of them, either.
I was going to argue that the 1979 ‘short’ decklid was just an illusion created by an airbrushed photo (it might not even be an actual car), primarily because the ‘spoiler’ lip is virtually horizontal. It would not be possible to use a taller decklid with the shorter ’79 quarter panels. Would Ford have use completely different quarter panels for such a minor change which looks to be less than a half inch?
Well, the answer might actually be “yes” because there’s a precedent with the 1974-75 Mustang II. The ’74 Mustang gas filler lid was mounted lower than the ’75 so the two quarter panels are completely different.
But, again, to change the short decklid on a ’79 Mustang to the later ’80 tall decklid would surely require new quarter panels.
It’s no illusion. Nor is there any difference in the rear quarter panels. The “height” I mentioned refers to the plane of the decklid panel where the “Ford” and “Mustang” badges are applied and where the keyhole is. On the 1979 cars like the chamois coupe below, the short vertical section those badges are mounted to looks to be about 2″ tall. Now look at the orange car in the 1980 pic below it; that same vertical surface is more like 3″ tall, most noticeable where the keyhole is. Note how the keyhole is at the top of the 79 decklid but centered in the 80. That’s because the 80-93 lid has a small upward lip at the back of the main horizontal trunk lid surface, just before it bends downward to meet the taillights. The reason this doesn’t require different fenders is that the top of the fold is straight across on the 79, but arched downward at the left and right ends of the 80-93 to meet the old fenders. If this isn’t making sense, I can make a drawing that shows the difference more clearly and scan that in. 1979 trunk lid:
and the 1980 trunk lid:
I find this whole ’79 deck lid thing fascinating. Until 3/25/2020 (yesterday), I had never known or paid attention to this.
(And I’m completely smitten with that ’79 Ghia notchback.)
Ah, I see how they did it, now. They achieved the arch by subtly stretching the decklid lip forward from the corners. Actually a clever way of incorporating an ersatz tiny spoiler lip without modifying the quarter panels.
Exactly. They did the same thing with the hatchback.
And thanks for pointing out that the ’79s not only had weirdly-positioned inside door releases but also weirdly-positioned door lock plungers (at the end of the armrest, inside the grab handle), easily visible in Eric703’s interior shot below.
I’d forgotten how the 1979 Mustang’s armrest doorlock plunger reminded me of the hoary old doorlock lever in the armrest of the Chrysler E-body ponycar. Those doorlocks were weighted in such a way to facilitate operation and it’s been said that a solid hit with a mailed fist in the right spot of the lower exterior door panel would unlock the door.
On the Mustang, a possible explanation for the whole contraption may have been an attempt by the interior design team to make the framed door look ‘cleaner’ and not so sedan-like. On the Mopars, it was more likely due to the long length of the door and a way to make it easier to get to the doorlock.
The inside door release location was odd. The Fairmont had located in the expected place. Having owned seven Foxstangs, I can say that it’s appeal to me was it’s light body and super simple chassis design. For those of us into drag racing components could be easily upgraded to transform the Mustang into a very much improved steed.
For the SCCA roadracers, this chassis could be built for several different classes depending on what engine and chassis work you did. If you went to an SCCA regional event in the mid 1990’s there were a flood of fox Mustangs in every class from 2.3L hardtops in Improved Touring B to thundering 5.0 stangs in American Sedan or severely lightened GT-3 2.3 L with a lot of trick parts or an equally trick and very expensive GT-1 version. So Everyone from a barebones no budget guy to a bucks up near pro could find a class for the Mustang that he/she could afford to buy or build. It was a great time!
I considered buying a Fox-body Mustang a couple of times but there were always slightly better cars available for nearly the same money. Toyota and Nissan offered their small sporty coupes with 5 speed manual transmissions as standard YEARS before Ford offered it. Then they would also make a rear window defroster standard years before Ford. The Mustang would just come across as a car built down to a price.
The first 5-speed effort in the Fox Mustang was called by Car and Driver “Ford’s Unfinished Fifth” because of the weird gearshift pattern it used. Instead of going up and to the right from fourth gear, you actually had to go ‘around and down’ to the lower right.
In the article about it, the Mustang’s chief engineer tried to claim the goofy pattern was to facilitate the fifth-to-third downshift, as well as having fifth gear closer to the driver. On the shift knob, there’s not even a ‘5’ but, instead, it has ‘O/D’ (overdrive).
Even more bizarre were the gear ratios. Ford continued to use those from the 4-speed, which were spaced in such a way that it was like a 5-speed that was missing third gear. So, you had first and second, then a big drop in revs before shifting up to third and fourth, then the weird go-around to get to fifth.
IIRC, this anomaly didn’t last long (two years, at most) before Ford got around to fixing both the 5-speed’s gear ratios and pattern to the normal right and ‘up’ position.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15142610/1982-ford-mustang-5-speed-review/
I had quite a bit of seat time in an ’85 or ’87 or so version of these, when I car pooled with someone for a while. I now recall it was uncomfortable, the seating was stiff and cramped, although from the outside the styling was pleasing. I dreaded getting stuck in traffic thus extending the ride to or from work in the thing. I was much happier when it was my turn to drive.
Surprising that the 1979 was the best seller of the Fox body era. I would have thought that sales would have at least been matched but I had not seen the numbers before. Great article.
Is there any significance to the Voyager/Caravan photobombing the last photo? Part of the Cavanagh fleet?
Yes, that was my dear departed 99 Chrysler T&C. I loved that van.
I had an ’84 Sable with those Ford seats that forced you to slouch.
I remember the excitement when these came out. Up until then, people were used to a new or heavily refreshed Mustang every three years. After 5 full years of the excremental Mustang II, there was definitely pent-up demand for a new model, and, visually, it hit all of the right buttons for the time. However, the cars were slow, uncomfortable, and poorly engineered and assembled. I’m willing to bet the majority of buyers of the those first-run cars never went back for another Mustang or another Ford.
The ’80 to ’82 recession ensured that the sales numbers from 1979 would never be matched. By 1984, when by all rights there should have been a new Mustang, there wasn’t, so it’s amazing sales stayed as high as they were. At least Ford continued to improve this generation throughout it’s agonizingly long, 16-model-year run.
The story of the Fox body’s unusually long run is well known – the car that became the Probe was originally intended to be the next Mustang, so development of a new RWD Mustang stopped for several years. But Mustang loyalists made it known they didn’t was a turbo-4, FWD, Mazda-derived pony, so Ford sold both cars side by side. We can see which one had legs…
1980-81 was a dark time for the Fox Mustang. Not only was the recession hurting sales, it was during this time that the 302 had been replaced by the truly lame 255 V8. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest the ’80-’81 255 V8 Mustang’s performance was on par with the 302 in the much maligned Mustang II.
Ford recognized their mistake and brought back the 302 GT for 1982 and, as mentioned, with a steady stream of annual engine improvements and minor styling tweaks, kept the old Fox alive for quite a few more years.
As to domestic ponycars, in general, both Ford and GM seemed to be surprised at the endurance of the traditional RWD versions. It’s like they were waiting for the bottom to fall out of sales, but it never happened (at least not until 2002 when the last f-body Camaro/Firebird came off the line). Even then, the market never really completely disappeared and, today, not only did the Camaro return for 2010, but the Dodge Challenger came back, as well.
Also, the 255 V8 was only available with a 3 speed automatic. Ford tried to position the turbo 2.3L four as the high-performance engine in ’80-81, but NVH issues, turbo lag, and unreliability prevented it from being a satisfying substitute for the 302. Ford tried again with an improved version of the turbo four in 1983 (the Mustang GT could be equipped with one), but buyers still preferred the V8. A long time later, a turbocharged 2.3L four would again make it back under Mustang hoods, albeit of a completely unrelated design, and finally feels like appropriate power for a Mustang.
I imagine the long run of the second generation F bodies and lack of competition(from the vantage of Dearborn blinders anyway) rationalized the long and growing cycles. Even factoring the extended run from the Probe incident, it still would have been a 9-10 year run for the Fox. In contrast in the 60s the Mustang faced another new competitor every ~3 years to chip its marketshare.
Indeed, back in the day, there was not only the Barracuda and Javelin, but a whole slew of good-looking intermediate coupes that were almost certainly cross-shopped against the Mustang.
It’s analogous to today’s hot, crowded CUV market; those aren’t going more than three years before they get at least a mild makeover (if not an entirely new, slightly smaller model).
My wife bought new ’79 when they came out as her first car, after graduating from college. 2.3L, 4-speed, base coupe. It had AC, AM/FM stereo, and the original all-season tires, the Goodyear Tiempo (I think her Dad negotiated the tire with the dealer).
It was a pretty decent car. My impressions were: bog slow, tall gearing, seats not very comfortable, door opening handles at ankle level, good handling, OK gas mileage. But… it was new, it had AC and stereo, and for a couple of recently-minted grads, it was great.
It looks decent with those ’86 GT wheels. I had forgotten about the hood badge on these early Mustangs though until seeing these pics. While not uncommon these didn’t seem as prevalent on SoCal streets as Celicas and 200SX’s, at least not until the power came back in ’83 and from then on.
Boy, there sure isn’t a better way to make a small car look enormous than to plant the wee Scot, Sir Jackie Stewart, in it, is there?
I vividly remember a crash at the end of the street where I lived when I was in kindergarten. One of the cars was a 1949 Ford. The two cars front ended each other. The smell was so pungent it stayed with me for years, I had never smelled anything like it before or since. I don’t know if it was the coolant or what, but it left a distinct impression on me. I came to remember that 1949 Ford too, and I chose to build that car as one of the first plastic model kits I built. I loved that bulletnose grille.
I like the way you wove the ’49 into your writeup JP. It preceded this Mustang by thirty years. One wonders what is to come in another thirty years from now.
Fresh, modern styling in a well packaged, and practical size, made these so popular. Besides the Mustang name. I was disappointed by the dashboard design.
I always found the hatchback version the most attractive. I was surprised Ford heavily promoted the notchback version for so long. Though it did look far more Mercedes-like than the Granada.
Needless to say, there’s a whole lot of Fairmont in this. Ford was not in good financial straights at the time, and it rather shows in how much it borrows from the Fairmont. It’s a lot closer to its platform mate than the ’65 Mustang was to the Falcon.
But it was an expedient way to save the Mustang, and Ford certainly got a lot of mileage out of it.
Like almost all new first and second year American cars, these ’79s and ’80s became scarce quite a while back. A shaky start, as usual.
Ford’s bad financial condition is an important point. Which makes me think how unusual it was for a company in such rocky shape was able to replace virtually its entire model lineup in the 3 year period between 1978-81. Of course, each of those replacements had a lot of compromises (and an inordinate number owed their existence to the Fairmont).
It is also interesting to consider how much better the Mustang worked as a Fairmont spinoff than the Thunderbird and Granada would the following year.
The Fairmont debuted first but it and the Mustang were designed concurrently, unlike the Falcon. The rationale behind the scenes was the Fairmont would benefit from traits tailored specifically to the Mustang as much as the Mustang would have a lighter more modern platform to ride on.
The 65 Mustang was being designed with an almost entirely different aesthetic mindset than the 60 Falcon, as design went back then. Had the Mustang been introduced alongside the Falcon in 1961 or an all new Falcon debut in 1965 they probably wouldn’t look so different, in fact the 66 Falcon does echo many styling traits. The set back cowl was the real separating factor, but Ford realized in the 70s that they could just tack on overhang for a long hood profile on just about anything, they didn’t care about dash to axle ratio. The result probably would have been similar if the company was flush with cash.
Mom bought a ‘79 coupe, in white with chamois vinyl roof, white/chamois interior group, sunroof, wire wheel covers, loaded. It, however, wasn’t a Ghia for some bizarre reasoning. Very modern for anything domestic then in terms of aesthetics. But it was the 2.3 4/MT combo. It says a lot Mom said her stripped ‘85 Cavalier Type 10 it was replaced with was by far the better car, and I don’t really disagree. A classic example of “when it ran right”…
I owned a 79 Mustang pace car replica with a 302/ 4 speed. . It was well done, an excellent package for the time, with many functional improvements over the basic Mustang. I had a lot of fun with it.
I also owned an 87 Mustang. Despite 8 years of development, I liked the Pace car more as it had a strong traditional muscle car vibe,
I owned a 79 Ghia fastback somewhere in the early 90’s.
Had a nicely modified 5.0 which made it a real fast car, smoking tires in 2nd (this was a automatic)
Can’t remember why I sold it, i do remember the rust. Oh, the rust….
I loved my Fox Mustang and pine for it every time I see one.
I loved the size, the practicality, the durability, the price, the Joe Average of it all. The Fox Mustang was just a good old car with the Mustang magic touch. Girls loved it, and no other car got me a much attention as the little red Fox Mustang hatch. I like biking back then and my bike just dropped into the hatch instead of hanging off the trunk. Red, red, red! Inside and out. So simple, so dependable, so functional.
And it was a Mustang!
I always liked this generation of Mustang. It had clean lines and taut proportions for an American car of that era. I only ever did back-seat time in one of these, so cannot speak to the driving experience, but I would certainly choose this over a 3rd-gen Camaro/Firebird.
Great write-up, and like you, I never would have guessed the outstanding success of the ’79 models relative to later years. I knew they were successful, but wow, 300,000+ units in one year… amazing.
And now that you mention it, I can see how these early Fox Mustangs are at the end of the Mustang-As-Mainstream car era. By the late 1980s, there were still mainstream Mustang buyers out there (I’m thinking of the 4-cyl., sparsely-equipped Mustangs), but they seemed to be the exception, rather than the rule.
I came across this ’79 Mustang at a car show this summer… incredibly clean and with under 70,000 miles. It was amazing to look at… it was for sale too, but the $12,000 price tag is probably hard to justify. Still great to see one in such good shape.
Interior shot of the car show Mustang:
Have a friend who had a brand new ’89 LX. The interior of that ’79 looks positively Germanic in comparison.
Surely, it just looks like a 2 door saloon with a big rear window, and not a Mustang?
I think the 79s were both the purest of the design and also the most dated as well. There was a lot of mid-late 70s atrocities listed on the option sheet that the most unflatteringly optioned Mustang IIs enjoyed, from vinyl tops to paint-on-performance graphics packages, and the quality seemed very subpar compared to later 80s examples.
As for the basic design itself, I get it and always liked it. It left behind the retro styling the Mustang II reached back for and tainted, designers actually made an effort to make the coupe not look like an afterthought to the fastback and it managed to balance a look between cheerful, sporty and menacing depending on what package you chose. No Mustang had that quality since 1968, as the 69-73 committed to bruiser musclecar and the 74-78 committed to economy car. I absolutely consider the Foxbody the purest of the breed since the debut years. Not that they’re the best looking or that they’re the Mustangs I most want, but that they could be the everycar for any demographic. On top of that it’s more on the nose Fairmont bone structure gave it a legitimate practicality over F bodies and a couple other competitors, these Mustangs were basically in the vein of the A-body Barracudas but with a stronger following.
Ford seemed to do best when they tried to stick closest to the original Mustang formula, i.e., an easy to live with daily-driver that didn’t make too many sacrifices for attractive styling. Even today, I’m not so sure the compromises of the fastback-only Mustang is so great for sales. If the Challenger wasn’t such a tank, it would surely eat more into the ‘secretary special’ demographic that has always been the Mustang’s forte simply because the Challenger is easier to see out of.
In a decade, there will be dozens of Challengers listed for sale after their owners pass. It is a car that seems to be especially appealing to 70 year old Boomers. Kind of like the last generation of Thunderbird is now listed everywhere.
Strictly from personal observation I’d actually say the current Challengers skew significantly younger, or at least more diverse in age group than Mustangs. Mustangs have gradually taken the place Corvettes had previously occupied.
I think the Challenger’s better visibility, back seat space and trunk space(and large opening) are what has made it a surprisingly decent seller for what it is. I think it being a tank actually bothers the performance enthusiasts far more than the “secretary car” buyers. I see pentastar and base R/T Challengers in regular commuter use than Mustangs lately. The Mustang right now is a far better performance car than the Challenger, and far better than what it had been not that long ago, but then so was the 71 Boss 351 compared to its predecessors….
To me, who was a teen and then a Camaro driver while they were building these, these were basically Monzas, while the Camaro was still a Camaro.
The original design before it had any refreshes was quite timeless. The 1979 model with the 5.0 Liter (O.K. its really only 4.9) V-8 is probably the one to get. There were supposedly a tiny number of 1979 models built with the 2.8 V-6 and the 4-speed manual transmission which were also reported to be quite nice to drive. The 4-speed was offered fairly late in the 1979 model year and was gone by 1980.
Yeah, my favorite was the 1982 GT which was essentially just a 1979 Pace Car in a solid color (red, black, or silver), forward-facing hood scoop, and standard seats instead of the Recaros.
The Recaros were optional on the 82 GT, as well as the 80-81 Cobra
My take:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1979-mustang-turbo-the-old-all-new-mustang/