The second-generation Camaro and the Fox-body Mustang have one fundamental similarity–their unlikely longevity. Both cars trembled under the long ax of their respective corporations at some point during their tenures, and both sold reasonably well throughout their respective model runs. Mustang v. Camaro has long been America’s most lasting battle between nameplates, but one must wonder if they were truly competing for the same buyer in the late-’70s and early ’80s. The “American as Apple Pie” Camaro overlapped what was perhaps the most European Mustang ever, and both tasted success.
By the time this ’78 Z28 saw the light of day, the second-generation bodystyle was really an anachronism, a byproduct of the “wasteful” muscle car era, a dinosaur. Against the prevailing wisdom of the time, however, they continued to sell in numbers that would make Chevrolet weep tears of joy these days: 272,631 units in 1978, 54,907 of them Z28s.
Those are heady numbers for a vehicle introduced during the Nixon administration and living in the disco malaise. The Camaro’s success is directly attributable to its “still-attractive after all those years” styling and reasonable power, two things that were harder to come by in the late 1970s.
As a performance car, the Z28 was stout, if not as stout as a similar Trans Am. It was also pretty big, longer than even a 2015 model at 197.6 inches. At under 50 inches, the ’78 model, however, sat about one floor lower than a current Camaro. The Z28 came standard with a 350 four-barrel, muscle car axle ratios, and a choice of four-speed or automatic. In a way, it was like the good old days, minus about 100 net horsepower. At least it handled well.
And the interior still looked the part. A brushed aluminum gauge cluster surrounded actual gauges, the old Chevy rally wheel still looked just right, and the console and four-speed could have been right out of a ’71 Camaro. The high-back buckets made the interior that much more cocoonish, but people expected that in their pseudo-muscle cars, at least for the time being. All in all, the second-generation ponycars lasted as long as they did because they were inherently good cars, but as the cliche goes, the times were changing.
The ’79 Mustang had as much in common with the ’78 Camaro (and the hapless Mustang II, for that matter) as a butter knife has with a machete. In retrospect, this is the car Bill Mitchell could have designed during the ’70s; it has the “sheer look” written all over it. Angular and spare, lean and taut–it was everything the Camaro wasn’t in 1979.
Much has been made about the 2015 Mustang’s “world-car” qualities, but the ’79 was truly the first European-style Mustang. The Cobra was equipped with a turbocharged four-cylinder (that was actually marginally quicker than the optional 302), strange metric wheels with matching metric tires, and the slickest drag coefficient of any Ford ever sold to the public (to that point).
This uncommon, original Cobra is a bit of a throwback, powered by the two-barrel 302, which produced a fair 140 horsepower in ’79. The 302 took a hiatus in ’80 and ’81 in lieu of the woeful 255 CAFE special, only to return in fighting trim in the ’82 GT. The 302 was a good decision, as the turbo-four did not come with an intercooler, and was rough and rugged on a good day. The 302 also produced more turbo-lag free torque in day to day driving.
In comparison to the Camaro, the Mustang is obviously more lithe and lean, and it’s no optical illusion: the Mustang measured 179.1 inches from stem to stern, a whopping 18 inches shorter than the Z. Maybe because of this, the public took to the new Mustang in a big way, buying 369,936 Mustangs in ’79, of which only 47,568 were 302-propelled. It certainly was a new, fuel-conscious world out there in 1979.
The interior in this automatic-equipped example is equally enthusiast-oriented, with numerous gauges on a black surround. The steering wheel pales in comparison to the Z28’s, but a sportier steering wheel was available optionally. One of the more awkward aspects of the ’79 was the low-mounted interior door handle, located way down under the window crank. Needless to say, that was a “better idea” that didn’t last too long. One striking point about this interior is how airy and open it looks compared to the Camaro’s. That same ethos continues today: the Camaro is somewhat bunker-like to drive, while the Mustang feels a little less constricting in comparison.
While our featured Camaro was nearing the end of its life cycle, the ’79 Cobra would culminate as the fire-breathing ’93 Cobra pictured above. While the second-generation Camaro continued to sell well even into its twilight years, Mustang sales were dropping by ’93, finally being replaced by the SN-95 model late in that calendar year.
Considering all its success, it seems odd to think that the Fox Mustang was almost replaced by the Ford Probe, which was a nice enough looking car for its time, but certainly no Mustang. The Camaro too was almost axed; Camaro/Firebird sales were so low in 1972, partially as a result of the 1972 strike at the Norwood assembly plant, that GM considered dropping them altogether.
Thankfully for ponycar fans, cooler heads prevailed, and we’re left with two vehicles that covered a lot of ground over their long lives. Today, although many butchered examples of both have led to dubious reputations (drag cars and “mulletmobiles,” anyone?), they were right for their times, and looking at these two nice examples is a treat for any car fan.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
Here’s my 79 V8 4/speed racing at Road Atlanta in 1981. It wasn’t competive but rain was a great equalizer. Finished 5th out of 25.
I remember the buff books and the Mustang/Camaro competition. The Camaro usually came out ahead because of its powertrain. A 350 LM1 was a way better powerplant than the horrid Ford 255 and just a few dollars could deliver a lot more performance. That said, I prefer the interior of the Mustang, which had better materials than the Chevrolet.
Typically, the Camaro would win the comparisons based solely on numbers, but the Mustang was usually judged more fun to drive.
The turbo 4 option in the 79 Mustang was no where near as quick as the contemporary 5.0 liter. I believe Motor Trend clocked a ’79 Cobra at 8.7 seconds to 60 mph with the 4 speed manual (not too shabby for 1979). The turbo 4 speed motor could do it in the low 10’s. I had a ’79 Mustang Pace Car with said turbo motor. It was sharp and fun to drive, but it was quite the dog…even by 80’s standards.
Given that it was during the throes of some of the highest gas prices in US history, the Mustang’s turbo 4 should have been a success, particularly against the pitiful 1980-81 255 V8.
But things simply didn’t work out that way. For starters, there was some significant turbo lag with the four. Then, when the 302 returned for 1982, it was cheaper and faster than the turbo 4. To Ford’s credit, they stuck with the turbo 4 in the quite focused and well equipped 1984 SVO Mustang, but it was way too expensive against the 302 Mustang GT. Ford pulled the plug on the SVO after 1986.
The 2.3T brought NVH, turbo lag, and complexity that the 5.0 V8 didn’t have. Most people, both back then and today, would rather have the V8.
This feature brings back memories of buying a 79 Mustang Cobra.
The Z28 was also considered but gasoline was up again and while the Camaro looked great it was just too outdated compared to the Mustang. So I decided to go for a Mustang and got a very good deal on the Cobra model with TRX wheels, tires, suspension and the 4 cylinder turbo with 4-speed manual. This was quite a step up from my 74 Vega GT and as my Mustang was a later build there were no issues with the engine or turbo. I was very particular about maintenance and had heard you let the turbo engine run for a moment before shitting it off to prevent “coking” the turbo. Not a very fuel efficient engine at 20 mpg (11.8 L/100 km) but get the revs up and it pulled pretty good. Handling with the TRX combo was terrific. I modified the Cobra as so many of us did back then. The car was with me/us until 1982 when baby came along
What an awesome article! Thank you for writing and sharing it. I feel like I’m 14 again seeing these like new examples from my youth. I was torn on which one I wanted to buy more when I grew up. I did have a Probe after I did kind of grow up and really enjoyed it as it was so futuristic looking at the time.
I had friends who had both Mustangs and GM F-Bodies of that period and I spent a fair amount of time in both. For the life of me, I don’t understand the appeal of the Mustang at all. Even my friend who was a diehard Ford loyalist (Until his dealings with his latest F150 Ecoboost nightmare finally pushed him into the GMC camp)said he was really disappointed in his Mustang. I thought the Mustang, like almost every Ford product back then, was ugly, inside and out, and was just…nothing. I bought a ’79 Trans Am, and stock, it was a huge slug, but $$$ and some work had it being a great street car.
The ’79 Mustang was a breath of fresh air in a very trying period. Size, handling, economy – the Mustang and Camaro were worlds apart. Granted, neither was built well-enough to compare quality or reliability-wise to a then current Toyota Celica or Datsun 240SX, but those were marketed to even more forward-thinking customers than the Mustang or Camaro.
Those were indeed dark days for enthusiasts as the car companies reacted to a vastly changing environment.
Very well said Dave.
To me, back then my Mustang was quite an improvement in build quality compared to my Vega GT. And yes, the Mustang was still not to the same quality level as a Celica or Datsun. I was impressed with most everything about my Mustang and never regretted the purchase. A shame fuel consumption was so poor with the 4 cylinder turbo. The smallish fuel tank didn’t help.
I recall a couple friends having 74-76 Camaros in the mid to late 80’s. By then the Camaros 74-77ish (Not the z28) were usually typically run down “white trash mobiles”. (at least the one I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing).
Was it just my “group”, or did all these seem to have the steering wheel a bit “off” or clocked about 25-40 degrees off centered? I know I saw it in more than one example.
So good it kept beating the 3rd gen Camaro. A funny comparison that is so non-partisan… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfudkE0nZGQ&t=4s
A friend of mine in high school back then got a 1980 Mercury Capri with the optional turbo 4 and4 speed. The Capri was the rarer version of the fox body Mustang. It was a great looking car that ran decent for the time. He modified it by lowering it and putting Enkie gold lace wheels on it which really looked good with the black exterior. My 85 Shelby Charger turbo was much quicker though!