I had purchased a used 1988 Ford Mustang LX 2.3L hatchback from the lot of the local Ford dealer when I was a young adult. It was five years old and in great shape for its 60,000 or so miles. It had a five-speed manual transmission, got great gas mileage, was comfortable both to drive and ride in, had superb utility with its wide hatch and fold-down rear seats… and was painfully slow for what I thought even an economy-oriented Mustang was supposed to be like. A high school buddy was visiting from out of town during spring break one year, and I was proud to show him how far I had come from my days of driving the ’84 Ford Tempo GL my parents had given me following seven years of regular use as the main family car. I can still hear my friend’s loud hyena-laugh when a stoplight had turned green and a Plymouth Horizon next to us at the intersection promptly left a widening gap between us… and held it there. Plymouth. Horizon.
“I’m still getting used to the shifter.” “I didn’t see the light had turned green.” “It’s not what you think.” “The air was on!” (Which it wasn’t.) My mind raced through a litany of increasingly desperate excuses as to why, despite my best efforts and reasonable skill with the shifter, I was unable to not only out-accelerate, but keep up with the little Chrysler L-Body five-door econobox. It would have been pointless for me to have said any of those things to my friend, though, because we were both from Flint, Michigan and thus have an innate ability to recognize and call out what we’ll call nonsense. I honestly don’t remember how I handled responding to my bud in that moment, and despite my generally excellent memory for detail, I was probably just that embarrassed that I blocked it out. This Mustang-Horizon story is one that still comes up in his and my occasional text message exchanges. It refuses to die.
My former ’88 Mustang LX 2.3L hatchback.
This stoplight incident probably set the tone for me thinking that something had to be done about this car’s performance. One of the main reasons I had bought the four-cylinder variety of Mustang in the first place was that I was on the hook for most of its expenses – the regular checks I made directly to Ford Credit with my payment book, gas, repairs, and maintenance. Insurance was a different story, and my parents had told me that they would pay for it up to a certain point if I kept my driving record clean… but not for a 5.0L V8 version. Mom and Dad would fund my insurance only if I got the four-cylinder LX, or I would have to insure it myself. The annual premium difference was that huge for someone my age – a young, adult male, albeit with no adverse activity. I was a college student and didn’t really want to work that hard for a car I didn’t really need to get around campus. I did love that Mustang. With the air conditioner off and just me in it, it was at least fun to drive with the five-speed, and it certainly wasn’t the absolute slowest thing on wheels. It was a Mustang, though. More was expected.
My former ’88 Mustang LX 2.3L hatchback.
I started scouring Mustang performance magazines for any glimmer of hope that there might be something that might add a little power. Was there a gasoline additive that would provide a few extra horsepower, or that would clean out the injectors that might have been affected by slow buildup of gunk? I didn’t know. I was not, and am not, mechanically inclined. I just love cars. Predictably, most car magazines were geared almost exclusively toward V8-equipped models, but I found one catalog that had a small section of a page devoted to something called a Superchip that could boost the horsepower of the base 2.3L-equipped cars by a substantial double-digit percentage. I never quite understood why Ford had put the 3.8L V6 out to pasture with the ’87 refresh instead of the four, but maybe their thought process was that the remaining engine options should do at least one thing really well – either get the most miles per gallon possible in a car like this, or go very fast. The V6 did neither.
The Superchip was to be my savior. It was Thanksgiving at my grandparents’ house, and my widowed aunt had just remarried. It was going to be the first time my new uncle was going to be with much of the extended family for a holiday meal. I hadn’t really gotten to speak with him that much at the wedding, but I did know he was something of a car guy and that he seemed like an all-American joe with a lot of manly interests and the tendency to know things. He and I started talking about cars at the table at some point, which might have been the only common topic that he and I might have shared in conversation. Sensing rightly or wrongly that maybe I just wasn’t his type of guy, I started extolling my Mustang’s good qualities, despite its slow acceleration. When I got to the part about my discovery of the Superchip and my plans to obtain one, my uncle looked at me with dead eyes and said, “Save your money,” before asking for someone to pass the gravy. He and I never got particularly close.
Our featured Mustang notchback is unique in a lot of ways. From a license plate search, I determined that it’s a ’93, from the very last model year of the Fox Mustang’s fifteen model year run. It’s also the last year for any fixed-roof Mustang with the more upright, notchback-with-a-trunk roofline we see here. The Mustang sedan was also the least popular body style by the dawn of the ’90s, being outsold by even the much more expensive convertible, at least through the final three years of this design. The lion’s share of sales went to the hatchbacks. Following the Mustang’s then-low water mark for sales in ’92 with only just over 79,000 units sold, the ’93s sold appreciably better, with 114,000 sales. Of that latter number, a little under 25,000 were fixed-roof notchbacks like this one. Over 27,000 convertibles found buyers.
This example was also born with a 2.3L four-cylinder engine under the hood, which blew my mind when I read the results of the license plate search. Never mind the giant hood. The dual exhausts out back are the real clue that someone went to the trouble to yank, replace, and enhance the innards of what had started out as a much more sedate car and give this Mustang sedan an organ transplant. I realize I keep using the word “sedan”, but so did Ford in the ’93 sales brochure depicted above.
The ’79 trunk-backed models definitely looked more coupe-like in their day compared to what else was out there, but by even the mid-’80s, the notchback had started to look like a generic economy compact. I’m not saying I don’t like it, which I do in present day. I find it to be a refreshingly light, crisp, and handsome shape in 2022 among many modern, overwrought monstrosities. Those police-issue 5.0L notchbacks had also looked so intimidating, and I think that may have been part of the rationale of this car’s owner for giving it such extensive surgery. It has been my experience that the hatchback versions are the ones that usually get all the love. I think I might actually like the notchbacks / sedans better now.
With that said, it’s hard to know exactly what’s under the hood. The ’93 edition of the “5.0L” (which actually displaced 4.9 liters) V8 had a horsepower rating from the factory of 205, which was down twenty horses from the 225-hp figure at which this engine had been rated since ’87. I’m not sure if the 1993 appearance of the SVT Cobra model with its 235-horse V8 had anything to do with that, but I doubt it, since only 4,993 (or 4,994) Cobras were sold for street use, not counting an additional 107 “R” models that were built for competition. Given that the owner of this one modified its components with at least an engine swap also makes it likely that whatever Ford V8 is under the hood is also hopped up.
I suppose the moral of this story, to some, might be to really commit to something or not do it at all. To be clear, my research into trying to make my slow Mustang faster wasn’t to try to make it the match of genuine performance cars of the late-’80s through the mid-’90s. I just wanted a little extra something under the hood so as not to get left in the dust of a wheezy Plymouth Horizon or another car like it ever, ever again. I felt that a little more power than came standard in a base model Mustang II from close to fifteen years before my car was built wasn’t too much to ask. I never did pull the trigger on purchasing that Superchip.
The fact that our featured, low-ish production ’93 Mustang LX notchback was still on the road last fall when I snapped these pictures seemed all the more remarkable, given that it had started life with the mill that churned out only 105 fuel-sipping ponies. Had it originally been somebody’s grandma’s car that was sold in an estate sale? Regardless of its story and trajectory, this car surely seemed to have beat the odds against its survival. That, along with its genuinely good looks, earned it my respect.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, November 6, 2021.
Nice find and write-up, Joseph.
My family had a 2.3 LX. When it came time to replace my mom’s ’83 Omni (twin to the Horizon!), my dad surprised Mom with a brand new red 1989 LX auto hatch, on Christmas Eve. He parked it in the garage and wrapped it in a red bow. It was wonderful to see her reaction!
While she liked the Mustang, she preferred the Omni because the Mustang was a lousy winter car. My dad had to load the hatch with large bags of cat litter to give it enough traction on snowy roads.
My mom ended up not driving it that often and after a few years Dad sold it to the next-door neighbors, who gave it to their daughter.
Thank you so much. You bring up a great point about the RWD Mustang not being the best winter car. I never had any of those experiences only because my time of ownership was in Florida.
I can remember a couple of times when I accidentally let out a little chirp of the tires on wet pavement after an afternoon rain, and also shaking my head from side-to-side frantically at the driver next to me to let him or her know I was not trying to initiate something! LOL
I have not forgotten what a Chrysler salesman said to me in 1978 when the Plymoutth Horizon/Dodge Omni were new:
“It’s quicker than a V8 Volaré.”
This actually makes me feel slightly better. In all seriousness, the more I read about the little Chrysler L-bodies, the more I have come to really respect them. I liked the Horizon my grandparents had.
I think I have followed the same trajectory as you in coming to really appreciate those notchbacks. They didn’t interest me at all when they were new, but now I like them quite a lot. But I was never a fan of that 2.3L four in Fords of the day, as they seemed better at generating noise and vibration than actual motive force.
I wonder about that 205 horsepower number. I know that the 5 speed cars always got the higher output engine and that it was detuned for the automatic (which allegedly could not handle the extra torque), and I wonder if that number is for an auto. I don’t recall anything about a horsepower drop in that time period.
Don’t feel bad about losing to the Horizon – my mother had an 80 Horizon and it was amazingly quick for what it was. I remember it as the first 4 cylinder automatic I had ever driven that did not make me want to scream in frustration at every stoplight.
The 2.2L-equipped cars were undoubtedly quick. That Chrysler 2.2 seemed like the engine to get in a quick little car with great gas mileage.
I got my hp figures from my 2003 edition of the Encyclopedia Of American Cars from the editors of Consumer Guide, so there’s a chance newer editions might have different numbers for the ’93 5.0L V8.
As the former owner of an ’89 sedan with the mighty 2.3 (and an automatic!!!), this is profoundly relatable.
For being rated at 88 horsepower, not all of those ponies were overly enthusiastic. On mine, the power band was quite narrow, being from about 1,500 to 3,000 rpm. Beyond that was a lot of commotion but not much locomotion.
Fuel mileage generally sucked, about 22 mpg (the same as seen by several 5.0 owners I talked to) due primarily to the chronic need to keep one’s foot plastered to the floor to maintain forward momentum on anything not entirely level. And I drove that car 80,000 miles in very un-flat terrain.
For what it’s worth, the EPA gave the 1989 2.3 automatic Mustang a rating of 24 highway, 21 mpg combined on their updated ratings; it was originally 27 highway and 23 combined. Conversely, the 5.0 automatic is currently rated at 23 highway and 18 combined; it was originally 25 highway and 20 combined. That insipid 2.3 did not yield any profound fuel mileage benefit.
That Mustang is the only car I’ve ever owned in which the carpet beneath the accelerator pedal developed wear.
I, too, found a similar ad for the Superchip. Frankly, it sounds we were alike in seeking any port in a storm. A K&N air filter was eventually obtained and it helped – I could go about 100′ further up any hill before that thing started downshifting and losing speed.
That Mustang was ultra-reliable and always got me there (eventually). However, it’s power output was so frustratingly and comprehensively unimpressive I did not buy anything powered by a four-cylinder engine for the next 24 years.
Whoever did the work on this Mustang definitely had their job cut out for them, but it certainly appears they did well. And they got a much improved car in the process.
Jason, the carpet under the accelerator pedal of my car was similarly worn, but since my interior was a dark blue, it wasn’t all that noticeable. It’s interesting that the automatic transmission hampered the fuel economy by that much. I don’t have any data to back this up, but I remember often being pleasantly surprised by how far and how long I could make a full tank of gas last in my Mustang.
I agree that the notchback Fox Mustangs have a clean and athletic look to them, even if they are boxy. Personally I’d prefer the utility of the hatchback, but the hatchback is a lot heavier looking. Never drove one of these, but I did a lot of back seat time in a 5.0 notchback that belonged to a friend of my brother’s, back when the 3 of us used to hike 14ers together. So, being stuffed in the back with my knees in my mouth, cruising through the Colorado mountains, and listening to Rush and Dream Theater, is my association with these.
The problem with the Mustang ‘trunk’ (as hotrodders called them) was the rear window. When the Fox Mustang was designed way back in the seventies, Ford was on still on some kind of Mercedes kick and that rounded rear window was some sort of ersatz SLC copy. To me, it didn’t work, and those Mustang coupes would have come off looking a whole lot better if they had simply used a nice, squared-off version of the original 1st generation car.
Alas, the Fox was tagged with the SLC backlight for its entire 15 year life.
As a counterpoint, the gracefully curved rear window is one of my favorite design elements of the trunk Mustangs. I think it’s distinctive and keeps the later cars from looking like an Escort…with a trunk.
The curved rear windows looked SLC-like on the early Fox Mustangs with the louvres behind the rear side windows, but less so when they went to the full glass covering. But the late version is a DLO fail with all that non-translucent glass. I still prefer the notchback for looks, but the hatch for utility. Make mine an ’86, the last year of the four-eyed Foxstangs with the original interior which I liked better. The rare early ’79 with the 2.8L Cologne V6 would be interesting too.
I’ve never heard hot rodders call a notchback Mustang a “trunk”.
I disagree, I think the window is the little bit of spice that makes the bodystyle more interesting than if it just had flat back glass. Not tying into 1965 styling tropes was the point of the Fox Mustang, it was a design trying to move on from awkward homages to the past(Mustang II). I find the hatchback more flawed because it absolutely needs(and by 1987 came mandatory with) a spoiler to flatten the deck profile. The result is awkward cutlines and a too tall butt. The notch looks athletic because it doesn’t have so much junk in the trunk compared to the hatch.
When I was working in sales, around 1990, the time came for a new company car, and a 2.3 Mustang LX automatic was one of the cars on the list of choices. I tried to test drive one, but made the mistake of telling the salesman that I wasn’t buying it, the company was, and he decided not to waste his time.
I put in my order for one anyhow, but I was rewarded with a notice that said people in my job position were required to have 4-door cars. (Why? I couldn’t say, there was never a passenger in my prior company car.)
I wound up choosing a fleet-spec Impala that came with the 4.3 V-6. Sounds like I dodged a bullet.
I’m a little surprised at the salesman’s reaction. Of course he wants to make a commission, but was he really that busy that day? Not everyone who test drives a car is going to sign on the bottom line that same afternoon.
I’m not sure a 4.3L V6-equipped Impala might have been quicker, but it would definitely have been more accommodating in the event you had to carry passengers. That’s the only rationale I can think of regarding the “only four-door cars” stipulation.
I wonder if the easier engine swap for this guy would’ve been to just put a Turbo Coupe engine in it, rather then a 5.0 (4.9) transplant?
Basically the same engine with a little boost.
My ex had an ’88 Turbo Coupe, and it accelerated well, and a Thunderbird is a bigger car, albeit the same platform. The car would still have that epic NVH for which these engines are so famous, but the swap may’ve been easier.
We had both ’88 T-Birds at the time, mine being a 5.0LX. Mine was definitely the smoother of the two cars, NVH-wise.
But taking it back to the topic car, I too prefer the notchback to the overwrought GT hatchback of the times. Plus it was lighter than the GT, presumably making it a better performer. When my ex and I bought her Turbo Coupe, the guy we got it from was selling it because he had just bought a Mustang LX V8 notchback. His was a light tealish-green color. That was a beautiful car. He too said he preferred the notchback to the GT when my wife’s son asked why he didn’t just get a GT. Ironically, my stepson would later own an ’86 Turbo Coupe, and a ’93 GT Mustang. I suppose he preferred the hatchback. 😉
It’s not well remembered but the 2.3L Turbo was an actual engine choice in Fox Mustangs in some (early) years. I don’t mean the SVO, but the regular Mustang. These never sold well, especially once the 5.0 reappeared in 1982.
I really liked that teal color of the later Fox Mustangs. I still do.
To be honest, I’m kind of digging on all of the 1987 – ’93 Mustangs these days in any configuration. I came across a dove gray ’88 GT hatch about a year ago that made me spend about ten minutes photographing it.
Great point about the 2.3L turbo. I wonder how often this swap has been made for those who don’t want to go the V8 route. I’d be intrigued to see one at a show and talk with the owner about their thought process about choosing the turbo 4 over the V8. Of course, it would make sense in 2022 where gas prices are sky-high.
Ironically, my 5.0LX T-Bird got better gas mileage than the Turbo Coupe, and both of these Thunderbirds got better gas mileage than my ‘83 3.8L ‘Bird.
Of course I am comparing apples to oranges to cantelopes here.
The 5.0 had the AOD transmission, the Turbo Coupe had sporting aspirations, albeit not naturally 😉 with its 5 speed stick, and the 3.8L had a carburetor, albeit a glorified electronically controlled one.
YMMV, in this case literally. 😂
I am stupidly in love with later years Fox bodies.
I had a red 1993 hatch, and I have never forgotten what fun it was to go anywhere in it. It is a perfect size and I know the hatch rattles, but I loved the versatility of it over the trunk-back. The hatch is airier and a nicer design. Better looking exterior as well.
Just window shopped for them this morning.
The versatility and utility of the hatch was undeniably one of its strong suits. My Mustang could act almost like a mini wagon when I needed to haul all my stuff to and from college. I even got a banana tree back there I had purchased with my dad.
Your uncle was right, most mail order chips are just snake oil that amount to a resistor in a plastic box that alters the intake air temperature signal and make the computer “think” it’s cold and give more timing advance. Magazines had so much do nothing junk for sale between articles, all boasting “gain 15 horsepower”, you buy a superchip boasting 15 horsepower, underdrive pulleys boasting another 15 horsepower, EGR delete boasting 10 horsepower, a throttle body boasting 20 horsepower, and of course a hot air intake kit boasting 20 horsepower you gained 80 horsepower! Who needs a camshaft or ported heads? Silly engine builders! Yeah, a brand new K&N air filter will gain power…. in place of the filthy 100,000 mile factory air filter (So will a fresh paper element air filter, and the requisite oil spritz won’t gradually gum up the MAF sensor element).
I always preferred the notchback in 87-93 form, all the aero revisions worked a little better with it because of that curved rear window, the new front end softened the overall design a bit, previewing the jellybean look to come, and that softer rear glass matched that better than the still largely angular hatchback bodyshape. I ebb and flow with my appreciation of Mustangs, since before I had a drivers license have had a vague sense that I’ll buy one some day but also find them too cliche and “easy” for my desires in a fun car, foxbodies are the only era of them I kind of continually like as they effectively have an identity of their own, no retro baggage beyond the name, and are as mechanically simple as any old car.
To your point, I did have reservations about the Superchip when I thought about compromises to how everything was originally designed to work. The last thing I wanted to face at that age was the possibility of needing some expensive engine repair (or a new motor, another four cylinder) due to something that had gone haywire due to the installation of the Superchip.
As far as my uncle, he’s okay. I’ll just say that in my own experience, there’s a way to present a point or counterpoint in such a way that doesn’t come across as invalidating or belittling. That’s why “mansplaining” is even a word in 2022. He could just as easily have said, “Maybe, but have you considered…” Not his style, though, which I respect.
It wouldn’t have likely killed the engine, but to your point the compromises in the factory programming are actually pretty well optimized in any multiport EFI car, adding even a legitimate chip to one without any real true mechanical changes very much limits the scope of potential, so while there may be a bit of room for improvement the money and effort isn’t worth it. Most of the time when changing a tune there’s a desire to remove a speed or rev limiter, advance timing to use higher grade fuel fuel and improve the air fuel ratio at wide open throttle(Factory tunes are usually excessively rich for safety factor), or on later cars with electronically controlled automatics change shift and torque converter lockup settings. Much of this is not applicable to a 2.3 Mustang(or even a 5.0, mostly).
I get the greater point about your uncle’s demeanor though, it’s one thing to be constructive in criticism, it’s another to just say you’re wrong and shut the topic down.
That car was my 16 year old daughter’s first car…..with an automatic. She loved it.
Nice article.
I, too, was tempted by the “Superchip”, for my ’92 2.3L, but was not convinced that it would be as easy as “plug and play”, and was concerned about unforeseen complications.
I did get a low-restriction “turbo” muffler, and I –thought— I could feel it open up some quicker top-end revs. Never timed it.
It was a nice, nimble handler, though, and I missed it’s fun on the snow when I replaced it with a boring, safely understeering Taurus.
I also passed on any opportunity to buy a Superchip, but when my first car (100 hp) needed a new muffler, I jumped at the opportunity to get a free-flow muffler that promised 10% more hp! I then convinced myself that my car was 10% quicker as a result – of course I have my doubts about that, but it sure did sound better.
“Unforeseen complications” is exactly what made me hesitate, as well! And I did miss out on the experience of doing donuts in the snow in an empty parking lot in that car. 🙂
It’s just a guess, but I would think that 1 reason why the convertible sold better than the coupe was that most of the convertibles were bought by fleets in Florida and California.
Like you, I felt that Ford had ” double-crossed ” Mustang fans that couldn’t afford a V8 when they ditched the V6 instead of the 4. Again, just a guess, but I imagine Ford did it at the request of fleets looking to keep insurance costs manageable. After all, when Ford discontinued the V6 in the mid 80s the Mustang was the only Ford product using the 3.8.
Yet, I currently own a V6 convertible, a 2006. It’s a decent car, but I keep wondering if Ford cheapened the V6 models to keep customers from thinking they really wouldn’t miss the extra power. On mine, it feels like the brakes are a size too small for the speed capabilities.
Great point about fleet sales, Howard. I hadn’t even considered that when originally drafting this. I’d be curious to know what percentage of those convertibles went to fleets.
I did later look at a red LX convertible (also a four cylinder) with a white vinyl interior when my ’88 was getting up there in miles. Car was so pretty, it had me thinking about going in debt, but the asking price was too high, it was another four-cylinder, it was heavier (being a convertible), and an automatic. I saved my own Mustang and my money and made the correct choice.
And I’d love an ’06 convertible. That generation that was introduced for 2005 still occasionally makes me turn my head. Nearly flawless style. No doubt Ford held back some of the goodies in the hope of an upsell to a GT.
One minor nit, Howard. The Mustang wasn’t the only Ford using the 3.8L in the eighties. The Thunderbird came standard with that engine. I know. My first Fox (Aero) T-Bird had one.
I find the V6’s breaks in our generation of Mustang more than adequate, although I have a coupe. Perhaps your convertible is heavier, and that’s what makes the difference. Doug D has a 2007 convertible. I wonder what his opinion would be.
Doug? What say you?
My ’83 LTD (the fox one) wagon had a 3.8L as well.
I enjoyed the article having owned a few Fox Body Mustangs.
The most notable being a 79 Cobra with the turbo-four and TRX suspension. Wonderful highway car for long road trips, which I did on many an occasion. Years later I bought an 84 L hatchback with the humble 2.3 4 cylinder. Yeah, down on power absolutely. One of my favorites was an 81 LX with the 6 cylinder and automatic. A chic car really but nice around town. I still keep an eye out for a nice 79-93 Mustang, but not holding out hope I’ll find one in my neck of the woods.
Garry, I have really come to appreciate the early (1979 – ’82) cars stylistically in their original iteration. There was a slick sophistication in those red and white taillamp clusters and simple eggcrate grille. I wasn’t necessarily grooving on the wire wheel covers, but the overall look works for me now in ways it didn’t necessarily before.
Hopefully, when you had your TRX-equipped Cobra, you didn’t need to fork out ton of money for those replacement metric tires!
Ironically, the Fox Mustang was the only Ford available as only a 4 or 8 cyl. since the 30’s or since. Not quite in keeping with the image. Ford advertised a 2 door sedan Mustang then that was slower than death with the 4 cyl. but people are bent out of shape today because the Mustang Mach E has 4 doors but it will blow the doors of most older Mustangs. Go figure.
Speed isn’t everything. A 2.3 notchback still isn’t a soccer mom crossover SUV
That 2.3 notchback was described by Ford as a 2 door sedan. Not a notchback. Keyword being sedan. I don’t like it either but this SUV thing is the wave of the future. Kids today aren’t going to understand why it is cool to have ask the front seat occupants to get out and tip the seats forward so that they can get out of the back seat that was made for Willie Wonka’s Oompa Loompa’s. Like the rumble seat, the two door coupe had its time and its is mostly past.
So 2-door coupes are outmoded therefore the Mustang has to grow 10” in height and adopt SUV practicality and proportions? There’s not going to be anything special about the Mach E when the Explorer, Escape et al inevitably go electric as well, think kids will understand the allure of the Mustang nameplate when it’s just some generic family car? It’s doomed either way, let it die with dignity.
Also Ford didn’t initially refer to the notchback as a sedan in any of the literature, the 97 Brochure refers to it as a coupe and describes the bodystyles simply as “2-door” and “3-door”. Only around 1987 did Ford start arbitrarily referring to it as a sedan.
Let it die? Now, why would Ford do that? They’re in business to make money by offering what they reckon people will buy. They appear to have reckoned correctly on this one; the Mustang Mach-E is selling briskly enough to moot complaints from a few old-car enthusiasts that this is somehow not a ‘real’ Mustang.
See also: Eeeeeeee, that’s not a real Charger; it has four doors, eeeeeeee!
Charger is still a sedan with a normal trunk. If it were a Tesla model Y clone masquerading as a Dodge Charger, then yes, Eeeeeeee!
I love this new world of business where if it were popular enough the hip Bronco name could be applied to a Miata like tiny roadster if that were suddenly the next hot segment. Ford should have just called the original Mustang a Galaxie 260 for that matter, what fools! They could have created a sub brand!
In 1964 the Ford Galaxie had a little over 5 years of brand equity behind it. Hardly legendary. In 2022, the Ford Mustang has eclipsed all other car based Ford models easily, with over a 50 year production run. It takes equity like that to create a sub brand. Too bad that Ford didn’t figure this stuff out before they took the Thunderbird out to be euthanized.
I bought an 87 LX 4cyl 5speed hatch new in June 87. It took a year or two for me to realize just how slow it was, since it replaced a well worn 76 Ford Courier.
The Mustang was a good car, very reliable and running perfectly when I sold it 9 years and 110,000 miles later. The only issue was with the paint: It was a deep blue metallic, and some of the blue dye seemed to bleed on top of the metallic, leaving lots of 1/4″ dark blue blotches all over it.
Craig, I do remember Mustangs of our era that were of dark colors having issues with blotchy paint. I was glad mine was “Oxford White”, for that matter. I remember the burgundy color being one of the worst offenders, with large blotches of paint on the horizontal surfaces worn off.
Mechanically, my ’88 2.3L was pretty rock solid. A/C issues aside (which were fixed), I needed a new belt tensioner at some point, and the rag joint where the rack met the pinion disintegrated (try expressway driving with that issue!), but that was also fixed. It was a slow, usable, fun-to-drive car that served me well and looked pretty good while doing it.
I too pile the Sedan/Coupe with trunk looks .
Too bad you found it too slow, was it marketed to older people perhaps ? .
-Nate
I had a ‘94 Ranger with that same godforsaken 2.3. I tried everything to either get a little more power, or at least a little more MPG out of it. All lead to no difference. It CAN go slower though…. In reverse!
Missed your article until now. Had a 1990 4 cylinder automatic. Every other 4 cylinder/automatic car I had was a hot rod by comparison.
A V6 would’ve been tolerable. Never understood why it wasn’t offered. The 3.8 lived on a lot longer, and you also had the Vulcan 3.0.