When I first saw the new 1979 Mustang, I was a bit shocked. It seemed so…pragmatic. As in what it all-too obviously was: a slightly shorter Fairmont two door sedan with two inches knocked off its roof and a sloping front end. Well, there was a bit more than that to it, obviously, but not a whole lot more. Which is perfectly fine, form a pragmatic point of view: the Fox platform was conceived to play host to whatever the Ford planners and designers and engineers could come up with, although I strongly doubt they imagined it being the basis of a Lincoln Continental and Mark. Obviously the budget for the new Mustang was modest, given Ford’s very precarious finances at the time.
After the flamboyant Mustang II, the new Mustang seemed so sedate, introverted and practical. But unlike the MII, it sat on a proper new chassis. Given the rather modest drive trains available at first, who could have imagined that it would become such a hot little number? But then it was hard to imagine a lot of things in 1979, at the start of another energy crisis followed by a very nasty recession.
These early Fox Mustangs have become very rare hereabouts. They just never caught the eye of Mustang enthusiasts like the later GTs. This one’s owner picked it up for $600 fairly recently, and lo; it’s only got 78 k miles on the odometer. Where have you been hiding all these decades?
And with a trailer hitch, to boot. Given its 91 hp 200 cubic inch Falcon six, I’m guessing it wasn’t pulling a horse trailer back in its day. Shetland ponies, perhaps?
The new mustang’s interior was not exactly a high point either, reminding all too much of its Fairmont relative. This one has lost some parts along the way, which might explain the $600 price. The original 1965 Mustang was of course a Falcon relative, but the family genes were well hidden. Its exterior and interior were truly new and able to raise the pulse a bit, even with a six under the hood. And all too many couldn’t see a Pinto hiding inside the Mustang II. But this did rather reek of a Fairmont, inside and out.
But it managed to excite a healthy number of buyers; 370 thousand of them, almost double of the outgoing MII, and very close to the MII’s big first year. Unfortunately, the excitement was short-lived, as was so common with first year American cars. Sales dropped steadily, and by 1983, a mere 120k Mustangs were adopted. After that, thanks to new found muscle and buyer interest in such, things steadily improved a bit, but the Mustang would never see such numbers again, as that 370k in 1979. The days of the Mustang as a truly popular car car were truly over; it survived as an enthusiast’s car, as well as those looking to indulge in a bit of nostalgia. And of course as the rental convertible of choice in certain scenic locations, but that came a bit later.
How does one explain 370 thousand Americans going for the new 1979 Mustang? Well, of course there was the somewhat sleeker hatchback, but even it looked a bit dorky from the side, even with a hood scoop for its less-than stellar gen1 turbo 2.3 four. Don’t look at that massive C-pillar too long, or you’ll be wondering what the designers were thinking. And what they would all-too soon be making it look less massive.
The answer presumably was that Americans were eager to revive Mustang fever one more time, even if it wasn’t remotely as contagious as before, and apparently the symptoms wore off all-too soon.
It’s nice to know that there’s still one young guy out there who was smitten, even if it was 43 years later. But then for $600 and those low miles, that probably wasn’t hard. It’s a mighty cheap way to get into an icon, even if the dash cover is gone.
This is not the first CC to cover the ’79 Mustang:
Did the guy inside the car know his picture was being taken? I’d be creeped out if somebody was taking multiple close up pictures of me for no apparent reason.
I ask because in the last picture he seems to be trying to cover up his face with his hand.
I’m going to guess that Paul secured permission to take photos when he asked the driver how old he was and what he payed for the Foxstang.
Good (logical) guess. In this day and age when so many carry guns, even risk-taking me isn’t going to just stick my phone up to the window of someone in their car and shoot.
I had a brief conversation with him, and asked if it was ok to shoot the interior too. He consented and went back to his phone.
I think he is talking on his cell phone.
I suspect the young man paid more for his cell phone than the car.
Though it had sedan-ish styling, that wasn’t a hindrance to a lot of people, because these were ultra clean in 1979, my mother included. Hers was very similar to this one, but White with Chamois vinyl roof, the Chamois/White interior accent group that included the low back buckets and headrests, stainless rocker panel moldings, same wire wheel covers, and the pop out sunroof. It was sharp for the times. Unfortunately, it also was very much from the pre “quality is job one” era at Ford, and her patience with the car wore thin rather quickly.
This Mustang, along with a handful of other American cars*, was an early harbinger of Spring, and gave us hope that the long Winter of the Brougham was about to be over.
*other cars on this list: ’77 GM B/C-bodies, ’78 GM A-bodies, ’78 Ford Fox-bodies, ’78 Chrysler L-bodies.
I owned a 79 Mustang Pace Car Replica for a few years. I liked the car and it was a nice package. 302 V8, 4 speed, decent handling package and Recaro seats. It felt sporty and lively due to its relatively light weight and torquey engine. An efficient, practical design for the era.
Things got worse in 1980 and 81 as the 302 disappeared. But the Pace Car package was renamed and resurrected intact for 1982 , including the unique grille, heralding a trend towards genuine and improving Mustang performance that continues today.
The 80 Cobra was essentially the same as the 79 pace car, it used all of the same bodywork including the cowl hood scoop that the 82 GT eschewed, recaros remained an option as well. The 302 was gone but the turbo 2.3 remained, which was also equipped on many pace car replicas
I’d drive it. This article does make me wonder something, though. Are the doors interchangeable with the Fairmont two door sedan? The contour lines on the rear quarters do seem the same as the Fairmont now that I think about it.
No, despite the many similarities. But quite likely some inner elements of the door are.
The front clip swaps readily enough…..
Ahahahah! Love it.
Raise it an an inch and there’s your Mustang Mach-E 0.5 edition body style!
To the credit of the people who do these it does actually take a fair bit of bodywork to accomplish
It has so much lines in common with the non-US Escort III, Corcel II, DelRey, Taunus and Australian Falcon XD and so far from any American Ford it should be the “foreign Mustang” or a new Ford Capri.
Yes, I remember when I first saw one on the cover of an American magazine, and I though Ford US was rejoining the mainstream of automotive design. Only the surfeit of chrome and sealed-beam lights gave away that it was American.
I used to own a 1980 hatchback with the 2.3 turbo four and TRX package. It ran badly but that made it sound very mean at low rpm, but the new owner was going to drop a v8 in. I should have kept the turbo bits because months later I bought a very nice Fairmont futura with a 2.3 and 4 speed. Too bad…
actually that’s a 43 year old car which is even more crazy
Doh! I started this post at 9:10 pm last night, and my absolute cutoff is 10 pm, to settle down for bed. So no time to review it. Fixed now.
The evolution of the Fox Mustang from it’s early years till the final 5.0 HO’s was a pretty good example of Ford’s path over those years. In addition to a handful of nice 5.0 GT and LX 5 speeds, I’ve driven an earlier turbo and once had a bubble back Capri as a rental. The latter was so dull I wasn’t even prompted to look under the hood and see it it was 2.3 four, or a six. It just felt like a larger Pinto with worse outward visibility to deal with Seattle traffic. By comparison the early four cylinder 4 speed Fairmont I drove felt airy and almost European. Well, maybe not almost, but slightly.
It’s the first and last generation of Mustangs to stray from the now mandatory design cues. Four eyes. No galloping horse. No triple taillights. I was nostalgic for the “real” Mustangs (64.5 to 73 with real long hood and relatively short front overhang) when these were new, but now I kind of miss them.
Hmm. Different people see things different ways. To my mind these marked a return to real Mustang proportions. They might not have had the galloping horsie and triple taillights, but they were much more athletic-looking than the rotund Mustang II. I never even noticed the horse had escaped from the corral….
I wonder if it’s 178k miles or did these have a six digit odometer? Those miles don’t look like they were along an easy trail. Or someone swapped out the gauge cluster and forgot to put the top of the dash back on….that’s a difficult piece to just lose like that, even in Eugene, the spiritual and fabled “Land Of The Missing Door Panel”.
I don’t know that I ever really thought about the Fairmont connection beyond that both were on the same chassis and that lots of bits are interchangeable. Looking at it now that you really mention it repeatedly, it’s so obvious, even the tail lights are very similarly designed and I wonder what made people choose a Fairmont Futura over a Mustang or vice versa back in the day when they may have been side by side in a showroom.
A $600 running car with inflated tires will always have a market, especially nowadays. If he keeps it running it won’t decrease. There’s definitely something appealing about that (I don’t mean keeping a car forever that was bought for real money, but buying a cheap heap that actually works, knowing the cost was minimal, and then using it to its fullest potential)
Do we consider the ’79 Mustang to be a malaise car or was it a point of brightness in the light at the end of that tunnel seeing as how it would go on to be considered one of the better straight-line performance buys of the next decade when properly equipped even if wire hubcaps, vinyl tops, and a six aren’t quite there yet?
No need to wonder; I just checked and thanks to eBay, it is a five digit odometer. So your theory of 178k miles may well be right; maybe even 278k? Naw; the wheezy Falcon six would have expired before then.
Although it does have some decided malaise elements, it really was a point of brightness, at least stylistically, in the sense of it being so much cleaner and honest about what it was. Clearly it was post-Brougham epoch, with all of its pretensions.
I liked the smaller size and packaging of the Fox Mustang when they came out. But like the Fairmont, they looked, and felt cheap. And somewhat like the GM X-cars, this cheapness seemed for many the price we had to pay in future cars, with conservation and less resources seeming on-going.
High fuel prices in 1979 and some gas lines (though not as bad as in 1973) may help account for Mustang sales that year. I loved how Ford got so many derivatives off Fox. The platform was used to replace products off the Pinto, Falcon, and Torino platforms. According to Wikipedia, Ford initially planned the short wheelbase Fox to replace Pinto and Cortina, though different philosophies of Europe and North America ended the idea.
A guy in my dorm had one of these 2 doors. 2.3 Pinto 4 cylinder engine, 5 speed manual transmission, factory A/C (after all, this was Hot & Humid New Orleans!)….and no other options. No power steering, no power windows or door locks or tilt wheel or cruise control.
I drove it quite often as he liked his Coors Silver Bullets and was not a car guy.
Although hardly fast, the powertrain was peppy enough …. if you watched the tachometer and rowed the gear box.
The manual steering was direct, had a light feel and was reasonably accurate.
The fifth gear overdrive made for relaxed cruising at 62 to 65 mph (about as fast as one could travel during the 55 mph radar enforced drive) during the 50 mile interstate run from college to our home subdivision.
Although hardly a low mileage, one owner car, it stayed together reliably. Perhaps the passing of time has fogged my memory; but I don’t recall him having any repair issues that I surely would had heard about.
It was black exterior, no vinyl top, green vinyl interior. Sounds odd but really did look good in person.
I’d be pleased to have that car today.
A guy in MY dorm had the polar opposite, a ’79 Ghia with the V8 and automatic. Metallic medium blue with blue cloth (velour?) interior, perfect condition in and out, I believe he got it from either his or someone else’s grandmother with very low miles. He participated in the autocross that was held in the dorm parking lot one weekend, it was a very sloppy handler but made it through…This would have been the summer of ’87…
“Unfortunately, the excitement was short-lived, as was so common with first year…”
All car sales dropped in the early 80’s, there was a freaking recession!
Also,. I take issue with this statement: “The days of the Mustang as a truly popular car car were truly over…” Really? Sales #’s maybe but not in memories.
It is still for sale, while many other cars have been dropped for Truck products.
All car sales dropped in the early 80’s, there was a freaking recession!
I pointed that out. But Mustang sales never came back to anything near those 1979 numbers after the recession was over.
Also,. I take issue with this statement: “The days of the Mustang as a truly popular car car were truly over…” Really? Sales #’s maybe but not in memories.
It’s a bit hard to put statistics on memories. I define “popular” in objective terms, not subjective ones.
If the Mustang weren’t subjectively popular the Mach E probably wouldn’t have been called a Mustang.
Used cars har harder to quantify, but Mustangs hold their value quite well which is most certainly another measure of popularity. It may not move in new car sales volumes it once did but it’s clearly remained a flagship for the Ford brand.
As a genre, the Pony was off its heyday. Or is that hayday? But, the ‘Stang remained a reliable 6 figure annual seller from ’79 all the way through 2007, occasionally making or breaking 200K.
It still pumps out 60 to 90K, but the trend has been downward.
For my money, calling the Mustang over as a popular car in 1979 seems premature. Especially as the day of a relative handful of models dominating the market were over for about anything but light trucks. Popular cars selling 500K to 1M and up gave way to sharing a market with a proliferation of models.
The neat thing about this one is it has the factory vinyl top wrapped in the traditional “tight” way where it follows the sheetmetal curves and continues down the A pillars, that was 1979 only I believe, the factory 80 vinyl top was redone in the simulated convertible style, with fillers to cover over the louvers and portions of back window.
The most sedan aspect is the framed windows, while there are sealing benefits to that I don’t know what Ford was thinking when they decided to equip the Mustang with them, the T-top models used frameless doors so obviously it was still within their capabilities with the new design.
The greenhouse on the t-top models looks better to infinity with the absence of the framed door glass. Oof. Even the fact that the ’87+ models had the window frames on the doors painted black was an admission of this.
I think I recall seeing later preproduction examples showing door glass that was either frameless or had really thin window frames.
+1
T-tops, convertibles, yet they couldn’t see it to make frameless door glass on the coupe and hatch.
Granted, the T and ‘vert came in ’81 and ’83, but with all the messing they did with this car, it would have seemed practical to just change them all to frameless.
Ford seemed to have a thing for fat window frames for a while there. Think of the later Tempo/Topaz, or the European Sierra. Ugh! Fortunately it wasn’t a look picked up by others. The chrome molding on this one just accentuates how thick the frame is, and takes away from the fleetness of the design.
I think of the light frames Ford was using on the European Cortina, Escort, and Capri. If the frame was half this thickness, and black not chromed, the car would look much neater.
The Fox body was the first sign to me that Ford had finally buried its bloated barges of yore. It wasn’t a land barge, or tried to look like a pirate ship. It was a purposeful design, clean and without gimmicks. It was an honest beginning, built with proven designs. It wasn’t FWD. It was a fundamentalist redesign which I believed was badly needed across Detroit. It did not surprise me to see the Fox used in so many vehicles applications. It was designed to do that.
The Mustang was the fun version of the Fox body. Ford could have put that slanted front end on all the Fairmont line and do a Mustang sedan, coupe and wagon. They did that to the Cougar, if you recall. Happily they didn’t. The Mustang became the Fox body halo vehicle where new sporty mechanics were unleashed.
The Fox also limited the Mustang. When GM finally decided to create a next generation of Camaro, the Mustang ran second on looks. It wasn’t low, long and you didn’t ride on the ground like the new Camaro. The Mustang used the GM competition to try newer, more radical things. The strong point of having the Fox body was that regardless of what Ford did to the Mustang, it remained practical. More practical than its competition. At the end of the day, you’d rather live with a Fox body Mustang as a daily driver, over the Camaro.
I know because I lived it. I had fun with my Mustang when I had an itch to scratch, but after satisfying that itch, was able to use it to carry a load. My hatch didn’t need a bike rack because I could carry it with only the rear seats folded forward. I could buy a load of groceries and I had even moved from one apartment to another using it as a moving van. The Mustang was both practical and sporty – a rare combination that worked.
When I look at sporty cars, I still have an interest in not just performance, but also in practicality. My Miata was never more than a toy. It was the car I drove back to the garage to get a real vehicle when something needed to get done, or if I had passengers.
I’d like to see more practicality behind the current Mustang. Perhaps I ought to reconsider the electric sedan Mustang.
When I reread the 1972 R/T comparison of the LTD with the 1948 Ford, I was struck by the first paragraphs describing the size differences between the two Fords. Even in 1972, R/T reviewers mentioned the useless bulk in the new Ford. They said that the only usable space that the LTD had over the 25 year old Ford was in luggage space.
As a kid, I didn’t wonder why the cars were so huge. By the time I was old enough to drive, I just couldn’t fathom why I would want a large car that offered the same interior space of my Valiant, but got 1/3rd the gas mileage.
Why did domestic cars get so bloated, wasteful, and stupid? Not until 1976 did Detroit attempt to return their mainline vehicles to what they were twenty years earlier. What the hell happened? As a consumer, I would not have chosen these types of cars. They epitomized waste to me.
This is why I drew in a sigh of relief with Ford finally showed signs of design sanity in the US market when they produced the Fox body cars. It was a big deal to me and I am glad they succeeded as well as they did.
Now – what the hell are we doing with these stupidly oversized SUVs? History repeating itself?
Well, General Motors said “Longer-Lower-Wider!”, and because GM had the giant share of the market, everyone else had to play along except for a few moribund low-volume independents and irrelevant importers.
What’re you, some kinda commie? This here’s Mairca! Love it or leave it!
“Why did domestic cars get so bloated, wasteful, and stupid? Not until 1976 did Detroit attempt to return their mainline vehicles to what they were twenty years earlier. What the hell happened? As a consumer, I would not have chosen these types of cars. They epitomized waste to me.”
Because people bought them. Until they didn’t. I don’t usually take the bait but aren’t/weren’t you the proud owner of a 2005 Mercury sedan that’s only four inches shorter than that ’72 LTD and actually an inch longer than a current year Chevy Tahoe, arguably the most popular Full Size SUV on the market today? Your car is exactly the car the current crop of Full Size SUVs replaced and most of the bulk of the market, ie Midsize SUVs, are in fact smaller (on the outside, many/most are roomier inside).
Yes, because that’s what was offered and that’s what they were told to want; told to aspire to. Yeah, yeah, I know, “Oh, advertising doesn’t influence me”…which is why it’s a high-multibillion-dollar-a-year industry, because it doesn’t work.
There’s a fair amount of chicken-or-egg to it, but if GM’s big cars at that time had been a size or two smaller—as in Australia, say—I reckon that’s what Ford and Chrysler would’ve done, too.
Thanks for making an example of Australia, Daniel. 🙂
Although our respective countries, and the US, have a lot in common (rough roads, long distances to cover, indifferent servicing, etc.) we have always had more expensive gas than you guys enjoyed. This meant that fuel economy was always a concern; below 20mpg (Imperial) for a family car and buyers were likely to go elsewhere. You could possibly throw in relative national prosperity as an issue too. Don Loffler has written extensively on the place of the early Holden in Australian culture, and how it became the default Aussie car. With over 50% of the total vehicle market at one stage, people came to view it as the ‘normal’ size car. Aren’t we getting off topic…..
I reckon US cars reached their optimum size as a large family car in the mid fifties. Beyond that you seemed to get bulk without benefit. Indeed I remember riding in a mid-seventies LTD at an uncle’s funeral and being amazed at the lack of room for my feet in the rear compartment; this was the funeral director’s mourning coach – probably the power seat motor/s stealing the footroom under the seat. Dad’s old Falcon almost a bit more spacious. What was the point of Bigger if it didn’t translate to more usable space?
I just wish they’d reintroduce the hatchback in general, once the Mustang committed to being a true fastback with the 05s it only seems logical, the Fox Mustang hatchback is one of the few hatchback cars American buyers didn’t arbitrarily shun, and it would be a welcome addition on modern Mustangs that have an mail slot trunk opening. It’s actually kind of weird it went away at all with the SN95 generation, I don’t know the breakdown between bodystyles but it seems like the hatchbacks healthily outsold the notchbacks in the 87-93 years, if they were going to consolidate bodies why pick the 3 box one?
The second generation F body was substantially sleeker looking than the 79 Mustang too, the reality is the Fox Mustang was largely just a refinement on the Mustang II’s philosophy – that ponycars got overly focused on style and excess, and that the original ponycar was the best ponycar. The F bodies were a rejection of that philosophy, they split the market, with F bodies holding to their guns of gradually morphing their ponycars into Corvettes, where Ford won back a lot of buyers who wanted performance that the Mustang II sorely lacked, without the tradeoffs of the Camaros. The current Gen Mustang slipped back into that 71-73 mould, ironically of all nameplates it’s been the Challenger that has largely taken up the mantle of stylish but reasonably practical to own as a primary car ponycar in recent years.
After the Capri, the Fiesta set the stage for the Mustang (and Fairmont). I was a kid, and remember thinking, ‘When is Ford going to start making cars like this here?’
Ford was on a rocky slope money wise for sure at the time. I am still surprised we got the Ranger pickup. But I’m glad we did, as I love my ’83 Ranger 4×4, powered by 302 small block. The Dana 28 front axle and Borg-Warner 1350 transfer case have been bullet proof behind my not so stock 302. With 31-10.50 tires. Why Ford upgraded the front axle to the Dana 35 for the 4.0L engines is beyond me. But if one drops in my lap, I will install it. It’s a direct bolt in. Might have to change the ring and pinion, but no prob for a man of my skills.
In today’s other Mustang related article, Jim Klein mentions the attraction of forbidden fruit. When these came out, the pragmatic nature was not very appealing to me. The greenhouse seemed like it was from another car.
I made a few visits to the Chevy dealer across from my high school when the mom that was driving made some stops for her ’80 Malibu. Just about anything in a Chevy showroom seemed better than any Ford at the time. A clean, simple base Camaro was way more appealing than the cleaved FairMustangmont.
Fast forward to the early ’90s, and the tweaked and cleaned up Mustang 5.0 LX notch coupe with aluminum wheels and sans vinyl top was very appealing to me, damn near bought one in burgandy. Smooth power delivery, great handling, a sort of stealth appearance. Just the sort of car for a young guy that wore a suit to work in the Midwest.
Regulations and the decline of GM had made forbidden fruit of most reliable reasonable cost V-8 coupes, and the Mustang had become the shiny apple available in a world that had poisoned most of its competition.
That’s a very nice 5.0 notch back. These are the most valued models for high performance builds. I took a test ride in a year old Pace Car replica turbo back in the day. The dealer was firm on price so I went elsewhere. At the end of the 90’s I was looking for a four cylinder Fox as I had just gotten rid of a four cylinder Acura CL. I wanted a hatchback version. The Ford four was not a powerhouse and it just wasn’t going to cut the mustard. I recently found a straight six Fox hatchback on CL, which I find really attractive but I know from experience that my two later V8 GTs will beat it in not only performance, but in fuel economy. However I still like it.
My girlfriend, now wife of 41 years, bought a new ’79 Mustang notchback. It was the same blue as the subject car, but a steel roof. It handled far better than I’d expected, but with the 2.3 I-4 was pokey. The five-speed had to be worked a bit, and a lot of time might be spent in 2nd and 3rd. Overall, a pretty decent car for the era, and a platform that allowed steady improvement.
“Don’t look at that massive C-pillar too long, or you’ll be wondering what the designers were thinking. And what they would all-too soon be making it look less massive.”
The designers tweaked the outward appearance of the C-pillar in the 87 aero redesign, but it was just lipstick to hide the still massive C-pillar. The louvers were replaced with a smooth one piece of glass, but form the interior the actual window opening was never changed and still had that tiny triangle of a window to see out of.
One of my aunts bought a 1979 Mustang hatchback new. I remember being very excited when this Mustang was announced — it felt like a return to form to me, with design language updated to the new Ford idiom. When I first rode in my aunt’s Mustang, I was shocked by how much the dash looked like the Fairmont’s – no sizzle, all functional. I was also non-plussed by how uncomfy the back seat was. And I was horrified by all the squeaks and rattles in that new car.
This is a 1980 Mustang, not a 1979 model. The 1980 and later Mustangs (in all body styles) had a subtle rear spoiler or lip molded into the sheetmetal at the back of the decklid, leading to a taller vertical surface above the taillights and license tag. There is a discussion and comparative photos in the comment section here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1979-ford-mustang-a-fresh-start/ . The other difference, somewhat less subtle, isn’t visible in the interior photo above – the inside door release handles on the ’79 are positioned very low, likely intended to impart a sporty feel as in the 240Z. These didn’t go over well and were moved to the normal position for 1980. The feature car also cannot be a 1981, which had new door panels with the also oddly-positioned door lock plunger ahead of the armrest (seen here) replaced with lock controls in their common windowsill location.
I think the Fairmont roots weren’t as bothersome as the Falcon or Pinto bones of previous Mustangs because both of those were several years old when the corresponding Mustang first appeared, whereas the Fairmont was only one year old. Also, the Fairmont was lauded for its modernity when it was new, whereas the Falcon and Pinto were considered mundane, break-no-new-ground designs even when new.
I had my ’92 four-cylinder notchback from ’04- ’08. It was nothing special but the only car I had that strangers made requests to buy. (No one offered a great price though). I finally sold it to a guy at work for his daughter and within a year she had driven it with a stuck thermostat and ruined it.
I had put a great stereo and speakers in it, and haven’t had as good a sound system since.
It was so easy to work on, though it mostly only got upgrades and detailing when I had it.
This era of Mustang was actually a bit European, but not many noticed. The hatch back 3 door sporty car was very Saab 9-3. The two door sedan with the fake louvre’s behind the back windows was very Mercedes SLC, only not so much because you could see through the louvres on the Mercedes.
Had a fairly new 79 hatchback. I found it attractive but slow. That old Falcon engine couldn’t even maintain speed up hills. I drove a company Citation, and it felt like a sports car compared to the Mustang.
Ah, the Fox body Fords….one of the few Mustangs I owned. Got this yellow ’79 V8 fastback & auto from a couple, most options but no sunroof, was only 5 yrs old but didn’t run. Fancy TRX metric (390 mm) wheels, tires were OK but hard Michelins. So didn’t understand why the serpentine belt tensioner was moving a lot til I pulled the engine out, found the crank broken just after the #1 crank journal. Swapped in a mid ’70s 302, and more. Got headers, what a fit they were, earlier MC 2100 from a donor Torino, got the fancy rear louvers for the hatch, was just getting to the auto trans when I changed jobs, a 65 mile commute. So it was sold off.
At about the same time, looked at another ’79 on a dealer lot, it was another fancy pkg, maybe a Cobra or something, had the TRX wheels, a sunroof that I thought I wanted, but had the 2300 & turbo 5 speed. What a pooch ! Was used to the 302 level power, admittedly the hi miles probably meant the turbo was tired, but the deal breaker was as I came to a stop sign, hearing water rushing forward next to my left ear in the roof rail & down the A post !!
Was the last of the Mustangs for a long time. More Fox body stories for another time…..
My Mother bought a new 1979 Mustang 2.3 with an auto, it was a great car for her. The full serve gas station attendant pushed the hood closed with too much force and dented the hood on her new car and they refused to take responsibility for the damage.
Also, who can forget the Mustang’s stable mate, the “bubble” hatch Capri?
https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/what-is-the-mercury-capri
Looks fairly pedestrian to me so I like it .
Were no cylinder heads available with three ports instead of the integrated intake manifold ? .
I seem to recall the interiors dying rapidly in the sun and no aftermarket replacements .
The trunk lid has serious rust, I wonder about the rest of the car .
I’m enjoying all the comments from those who owned or drove one of these .
-Nate