(Updated 10/12/2026) I have a soft spot in my heart for the Mustang SVO. More precisely, it’s the one Mustang that I could actually have seen myself buying, as my soft spot encompasses its two main qualities: high tech and superb handling. Yeah, yeah; I know the 302 was the better car for 95% of Mustang buyers, but then I didn’t exactly fit the Mustang buyer profile.
The SVO was an attempt to build the Mustang of the future: using high tech to optimize efficiency, by making a turbocharged four as fast or faster than a V8, and by optimizing its handling prowess by all the means available at the time. For that, Ford gets kudos from me. And it did from Road & Track at the time, which was duly impressed, not surprisingly.
Not surprisingly, the SVO sold in very limited numbers, although that was largely by design. But it developed a cult following, and it most certainly predicted the future where turbo-four Mustangs (and so many others) are the norm, not the exception.
Road & Track, which always prioritized all-round handling over straight line prowess, had been waiting for the SVO since 1964, since there never had been a proper GT Mustang, regardless of what badges it wore. Yes, the Shelby GT350 Boss 302 were attempts at this, but both suffered from the intrinsic limitations of the original Mustang’s Falcon underpinnings. No amount of firmer springs and harsher shocks could make for a cohesive sports-GT car of global caliber. The SVO was the first.
Given that I did buy an ’83 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, I was particularly interested in what Ford’s Special Vehicle Ops had wrought here. With the addition of an intercooler as well as variable boost, controlled by Ford’s very high tech EEC-IV engine management system, not only was maximum power increased to 175 hp from 145, but the boost also came on sooner, expanding its useful powerband considerably. That was definitely a well-needed improvement, as the one in my TC was very short indeed. Too much like an on-off switch. The SVO was the first of its kind to make a meaningful step in the direction that made hi-po turbos so much more palatable. And the later versions of the SVO upped the ante to 205 hp. And today there’s folks running SVO’s with well over 400 hp.
I’d forgotten about Ford’s little sleight of hand in using a speedometer that read up to 140 mph even if the numbers stopped at 85, as was the standard of the times.
The SVO’s interior was business-like, and made the most of its very plebeian Fairmont origins. The seats were good, the instruments were clear, the quality was high for the times, and the accommodations were better than the Camaro, thanks to its boxy hard points, also inherited largely from the Fairmont.
The SVO’s performance was excellent. It was a good two seconds quicker to 60 than the T-Bird Turbo Coupe, and a full 10 seconds quicker to 100. It was a bit faster than the 177 hp Mustang GT too, albeit just a bit. Or more like a tie, realistically. But straight line performance was not the SVO’s calling card; its substantially upgraded suspension, bigger wheels and 4-wheel disc brakes as well as its much better front/rear weight balance would easily leave a GT in its wake on almost anything but a straight line. And for some of us, that was well worth the trade-offs.
I had a spirited argument with my classmate’s boyfriend about his Ford Mustang GT and whether SVO’s turbo engine was better than V8 engine and worth the higher cost. He said simply: “there’s no substitute for displacement.” So, there…
People in the early 1980s were still wary of turbocharged engines due to their penchant for oil starvation, oil coking, irritating turbo lags, blown gaskets, etc. Not to mention the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde handling of Porsche 911 Turbo in the hands of inexperienced drivers that attracted miles and miles of headlines in the media.
Gradually, the manufacturers tamed the problem child. Today, it is mostly inconceivable to offer the vehicles without turbocharged engines.
what is it silhouetted by the car’s right rear wheel on the magazine cover?
That is the factory traction bar end. Installed to address my username.
So it’s hanging because the car is off the ground? Or it’s about to fall off?
I would imagine that when the suspension is unladen (you know, like up in the air), that’s where the traction limiter rests.
Ah, been wondering for years…
It will be no surprise that in 1987 my take was the opposite of PN’s. “High tech” was code for “more expensive and less durable”. The car seemed to me the antithesis of what Mustang was all about. It was a European concept that mated (admittedly) better handling with a peaky turbo engine in a package that cost too much. It did not surprise me that it didn’t sell well and soon went away. Today I appreciate more what they were trying to do, but it was just not a package that was going to sell from a Ford dealer.
One nit, you compare the SVO to the 177 hp GT, but I think you are looking at the automatic transmission version – always detuned because the AOD couldn’t handle the extra power. The stick shift version was 225 hp in 1987.
“but it was just not a package that was going to sell from a Ford dealer” I seem to recall the pundits saying the same thing about the Corvette and Chevrolet dealers…
I was rushed and somehow got 1987 in my head instead of 1984. I stand corrected on 1984, but the 5.0 was up to 210 with a stick in 1985.
The SVO cost about 15k when an 84 GT was about $10. This was the kind of package that appealed to those who appreciated a European concept of performance. But it also carried a European style of pricing, a tough sell when the ‘Murcan version was so much cheaper for very little (if any, depending on the particulars) reduction in performance.
As for the remark about the Corvette, “they” were wrong. This time they were not.
BTW, I tried to love the TBird TC. Unlike Paul, I was not able to make peace with that coarse, peaky engine. Had Ford offered the Mustang GT 5.0 in the TC I would have bought one. I was heartsick at the time that the combo of engine and car was a no-go.
A better comparison than the Corvette would be when John Delorean tried the same thing almost ten years prior with the Cosworth Vega. It was about as successful as the Mustang SVO, too.
Half as much again for the SVO. Today’s Eco-Tec 2.3 is cheaper than the V8. .. By half in one EU country!. Different times.
Don’t know where you pulled 1987 from but featured car is 1984. There was no 87 SVO.
“High tech” was code for “more expensive and less durable”.
That sums up a lot of thinking in those years. There were so many cars that had developed a bad rep for reliability, especially those with tech new to most consumers at the time, that people found anything simple with a halfway decent Consumer Reports ranking a breath of fresh air.
Turbos in particular had a pretty bad rep, turbos mostly died out with the ’80s, much like diesels.
The Cummins diesel in Dodge trucks seemed to be where some positivity came back to diesels. Ford’s Ecoboost is certainly a leader in mainstreaming modern Turbos – at least for me. And, I own one.
Like you, without a head filled with Turbo = bad, I better appreciate the SVO Mustang. Without the spoiler, it’s also a pretty clean design as Fox Mustangs go.
The turbocharged Ford 2.3 turned out to be rather indestructible, and there are users out there with well over 400 hp thanks to chips and more boost.
The first version of Ford’s turbo four turned out to be unreliable. Ford withdrew the engine from the market, made several improvements, and reintroduced it in the early 1980s. But by that point, the price of gas was falling, and the economy was recovering, and Ford had made several improvements to the 5.0 V-8.
A friend bought one of these and it spent a lot of time in the dealer’s service department. I got the impression that there was no mechanic training for this new engine. He liked the idea a more exotic American car and ended up with a turbo Buick Regal. I turned out to be rock solid reliable.
Quick off the line but I was surprised to see “just” 15.8 in the quarter, I’m reminded once again of how much progress has been made in terms of power/acceleration. A 2012 4cyl Camry like my wife’s is just .1 second behind at the end of the quarter mile, and just slightly slower off the line.
Another interesting comparison to a different car in my stable that’s a decade closer in age, and more similar in purpose: ’98 Neon R/T with the 150hp 2.0L engine (manual only). 0-60 in 7.5, quarter mile in 15.9.
14.7 in the quarter mile for my 2018 TourX wagon. It will carry your whole family to Wally World for a vacation as well. 😉
It’s wild to think a Honda Insight is directly on top of this car’s performance perspective for us now in 2020. Click on specifications:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a28316198/2019-honda-insight-vs-2020-toyota-corolla-hybrid/
Undoubtedly many modern new mainstream cars can easily keep up or surpass these Mustangs in straight line performance. However, having driven a modern Camry and Fox Mustang, I can tell you there is no comparison on which one is more fun to drive. The 5.0L Fox Mustang is a joy and the abundance of low end torque along with tire shredding ability and agile handling make it far more enjoyable than a contemporary family car that may out run it. Of course, your mileage may vary.
Agreed that this was my favorite Mustang of the era, the slight changes in appearance made for a huge difference compared to the still semi-gingerbready regular ones. The double decker wing was a good preview of the Cosworth Sierra’s.
In ’84 I likely would have gone turbo had I been in the market, there were plenty of contenders on the Euro front to make it a non-alien experience by that time and advancements were rapid and significant. Kind of like Electric today but then again here we are 36 years later and there are still people out there that think today’s turbos are unreliable and have issues with “coking” etc rather than being the completely mature technology they are.
It seems the ‘83 Ford Sierra XR4 got the bi-plane spoiler before the SVO. I thought these were ugly as all hell on cars that had them new, but I think they are kind of neat now:
Great to read this — the SVO was a fascinating car. And it’s always hard to know whether to compare these to the V8 Mustang GT or (like R&T suggests) to the Saab 900 and Audi Coupe, against which the SVO looks like quite a bargain.
And to go along with this article, below is a copy of Road & Track’s first whiff of the SVO, from a year and a half earlier:
You make me wonder if an SVO-style powertrain might have had a better chance against the likes of Audi and Saab in a Probe. Of course the German Fords should have fought in that league but did poorly here. I have to give Ford credit for trying quite a few approaches then.
Or – going really far out on a limb here – instead of bringing out the dreadful Taurus-based Lincoln Continental, give the Fox-based Continental a thorough makeover in the manner of the 1994 Mustang, and offer a performance version with SVO mechanicals. Just make additional improvements to increase the level of refinement.
It would have been a nice companion to the Mark VII LSC.
Definitely an interesting package and the speedometer trick made me laugh.
I never did warm to the front end re-style with the single, inset headlight. It looks weird and cheap to my eyes despite being the premium Mustang of the day.
As you probably know, SVO Mustang got flush-mount headlights starting in MY 85. Federal regs were changed in 1983, largely as a result of persistent lobbying by Ford, allowing for “non-standard” non-sealed beam headlights on passenger cars. Apparently NHTSA didn’t release the rule change in time for the MY 84 SVO Mustang to take advantage it, although the Lincoln MarK VII did. The T-Bird didn’t get aero headlights until MY 87, IIRC.
Just to clarify, Lincoln Mark VII got the headlights first in ’84.
SVO got the headlights in ’86 along with the redesigned T-bird.
Close. Gearhead Dave is correct that the T-Bird didn’t receive composite headlights until the MY87 revamp.
The flush-mounts were certainly better but I still did not warm to the SVOs front end styling. I preferred the standard Mustang of each year better.
The flush headlights on the later SVO looked worse to me, the lenses were now on a flush plane but the headlight lenses still lacked smooth integration to the inboard and outboard lenses, every one I see they look out of alignment. But I agree, the front end never looked as good as any of the regular front ends, and a big problem I have is the design didn’t favor big dual rectangulars, the Fox design was to me a four-eye design first and foremost, the 87s reverted to single composites but the effect was better. Part of it is the wraparound turn signal shape reminds me of the Fox LTD.
I like the regulatory FU of that speedometer, the 85mph speedometer was the dumbest rule ever foisted upon manufacturers.
I bought my first house right around the time these came out, and traded my 2 year old Civic for a used Datsun truck. But my new home was not far from San José’s Capitol Expressway Auto Row and I stopped at the Ford dealer to check out the SVO. Not a fan of the rear spoiler, and in almost every other way it ticked a lot of boxes. A few years earlier I had driven the previous iiteration of the Fox Mustang Turbo, and despite all the bad press it got, I liked it a lot. But as a new homeowner, the $15K price of the SVO was not a box I could afford to tick.
IIRC, the asking price for the SVO was steep, indeed, particularly when compared to the ‘old-tech’ (but faster) 5.0L Mustang. As usual, price, more than anything else, was what killed an otherwise decent car. If it had been priced substantially closer to the GT, it surely would have been more successful.
It’s interesting to note that the $15.5k price then according to a Google inflation calculator is $39k today, barely above the average transaction price of a new vehicle now. Those Mustang GT’s in 1984 were crazy cheap next to an SVO.
Paul – I understand.
If I were to go buy a Mustang tomorrow it would be an Ecoboost 2.3 with the high performance package and 6-speed manual.
Any troglodyte can drive a V8. 😛
I had a lot of cash saving for my first house. Spent some of it on my first new car 1985.5 SVO, with the competition option. Deleted AC, radio, electric windows etc to save about $1300 off the list. It was mostly reliable, only once in the shop for a new computer, fortunately under warranty. But at around 60,000 miles the turbo was leaking oil and it had a few cosmetic problems. I traded it in on a used Chevy Cheyene with AC as I was moving to Texas. Here is a lousy pic of me trying to keep it in between the cones.
As a teen at the time, I liked the SVO but if I had been able to buy a new Mustang (I wish!), it certainly would have been a GT like most everyone else. I really do admire Ford for taking the road less traveled and building the best high-tech performance car they could.
It would have been neat if they could have continued making the SVO for the whole Fox body era. GT power jumped to 225 for 87, but stayed there for the rest of the 5.0’s run. If Ford had kept improving the SVO, they surely could have gotten it to at least 225, but probably wouldnt have wanted to surpass the GT for marketing reasons. I always felt the front end was a foreshadow of the 87 facelift.
Do we know why they killed it after 86? I wonder if even at the higher price they still lost money on every one.
Ford Probe. Same reason the 5.0 didn’t get any meaningful updates until 1993 with the SVT Cobra. The Probe was going to be the next Mustang after the Fox, and in fact the GT model used a turbocharged intercooled four not far out of concept from the SVO.
Cost and sales likely nixed the package for 87 rather than have a stopgap replacement until the would-be successor arrived, all the additional suspension, braking wheel, interior and bodywork changes from a GT made it less profitable.
Something about this car always looked a little “off” to me. The early fox-Mustangs had a European look to them, and the SVO added Euro function and lots more Euro style, but a different type of style. I think it took away from the parts of the Mustang I like the most. The front end is terrible, the wheels look like they belong on an ovoid Probe-type concept car, and the hood scoop just looks dumb. The bi-spoiler doesn’t work for me either, but by itself it wouldn’t be so bad. Too bad they couldn’t have just added the suspension and brakes to the GT, and had the best of both worlds, except for the extra weight in the front. But turbo-lag sucks. You could have gotten that from a Skyhawk or K-car for much less money.
I think it’s somewhat interesting that the SVO Mustang and the aerodynamic improvements it had may have followed influence from the second generation Capri from Ford to the third the US never received in mid 78’? Considering the Probe, was it Ford actually trying to test a more modern Mustang shape instead, and if it failed, dump the old configuration RWD platform to “Probe”?
If you consider the amount of time that it takes to get a car to market, the genesis of the SVO was probably late 1980 or so. At that time, the problems associated with the first turbo Mustang hadn’t materialized yet, so this would have seemed like a good idea. Especially with the belief we’d be paying $1 or more per gallon for the foreseeable future.
It was an exercise in using factory parts to hop up a Fairmont platform car and it looked like it, too. The styling was just weird, especially the front fascia in the 1.5 years. Frankly, Ford should have applied all of those parts to the Capri since it (allegedly) had better cachet or added the engine bits to the Merkur (Sierra) which would have carried the price to justify it.
The V8 cars had 90% of the performance for about 75% of the price. The turbo T-birds had a more “grown up” profile akin to being the junior Mark VII LSC. The SVO was like your weird cousin who was born in the US to immigrant Eastern European parents who didn’t understand American culture and norms. It just didn’t fit in…
Really point about the Capri, aesthetically the SVO looks right at home next to the Merkur XR4TI that would have shared showroom space, right down to the biplane rear spoiler(s).
The Mustang was what it was, an American icon, for better or worse. It may have aspired to European delicacy since the beginning, but that brash rough Americanness of overcoming shortcomings with engineering band-aids and low down V8 grunt is what made it what it was, and that’s really what the Fox 5.0s kept the spirit of. The Capri on the other hand had European lineage to the name, the Fox Capri never recaptured what was appealing to its predecessor, it was a Mercury Mustang. The SVO would have been a perfect fit for the name, and frankly the Mustang didn’t need a new facia in 1984, because it already had a new facia in 1983, and again in 85. The Capri on the other hand had the same exact front end at its end in 1986 as it did in 1979
(Gets on soap box) The original Capri had “Europeanness” and cachet that was so in-demand in the early to mid 70’s. This was something the Mustang could never achieve. When Ford was planning the Euro Capri’s replacement, they thought the Fox Capri could recapture some of the previous car’s magic. By the time it launched, Ford (Corporate) was in financial trouble, so they went for volume rather than quality. The formerly well-equipped and higher priced car had been de-contented to compete with imports and even the Fox Mustang.
Here’s a scenario where a SVO Capri would have made sense: It would have been able to establish a logical progression from Mercury to Merkur, high tech, well-equipped cars to take on the Germans. Instead, we got the hilariously misguided Merkur brand (Hey, let’s bring over some of our Euro cars, force all marketing to pronounce the name in German, give it nearly zero marketing support AND place them in our weakest distribution channel) to take on the Germans. Shortly after that debacle, the L-M division effectively became the Lincoln Town Car company. But the Lincoln-Mercury marketing mavens thought they needed a youth car (they would do this at least one more time before the end) again…
Enter: the Australian Mercury Capri. (Gets off soap box)
A friend had one for about a year, and it was another of his many Ford stinkers. In the shop, fixing an engine issue. Repeat. Repeat. Again. Finally, he got fed up, not with Ford itself, he keeps buying their vehicles, nothing seems to break him of his Ford fixation. He ended up trading the SVO for a Mustang GT, which was pretty much rock solid reliable, but it creaked when it was cold inside after sitting all night, and he took it to a couple of car upholstery shops to see if they could quiet it down. I think it was the best Ford he ever owned. His 2019 F150 seems to be a chip off the old block, as it just came out of the shop, again, with engine/turbo issues. It’s still under warranty, but it sounds just like it’s going to be a repeat of the issues he had with his last truck. He’s like the dogs who keep messing with Porcupines. They never learn, and keep on messing with them. At least his Bullitt Mustang has been perfect so far.
Reading through the comments, there are a couple of things to clear up on the hp ratings.
The 5.0L Mustang was rated as follows:
1982: 157 hp (2bbl carb)
1983-84: 175 hp (4bbl carb)
1985: 210 hp (4bbl carb)
1986: 200 hp (SEFI)
1987: 225 hp (SEFI)
The most powerful 5.0L was the 1993 SVT Cobra, rated at 235 hp.
The automatic was optional on the 1984-85 GT, but it was not a 5.0L HO.. Instead it got the 165 hp dual exhaust 302 CFI lo-po engine. This was also used in the Fox body LTD police cars. From 1986 on, when the 5.0L HO got SEFI, the automatic cars finally got the HO engine. These engines had the same advertised HP rating as the manual transmission cars, although some sources suggest the auto was slightly lower rating.
There were some road tests of 1984 Mustangs with a 205 hp 5.0L, supposed to be introduced in mid-1984. This didn’t happen, and the new improved engine was released in 1985 with a revised 210 hp rating.
Undoubtedly the SVO was a better balanced, better handling and better braking Mustang compared to the 5.0L GT. It was a true Peterson-era Ford. However, the price differential wasn’t worth the improvements for most Mustang owners. The styling improvements were also questionable. And I suspect those that favored handling refinement over straight line performance tended to be much more likely to buy something from across the pond. It’s too bad Ford didn’t offer the SVO suspension and brakes with the 5.0L.
I’d also suggest that while the performance numbers of the SVO aren’t far off a 5.0L Mustang, the 5.0L was almost always the better straight line performer in the real world where a perfect launch technique wasn’t used. On the street, the instant torque of the 5.0L HO could jump way ahead of a Turbo that wasn’t launched with the turbo spooled up.
Here are a few more period tests of Mustangs:
C/D June 1983 – Mustang GT 5-speed, 3.27 gears
0-60 8.2 secs, 1/4 mile 15.4 @ 90 mph
MT Oct 1983 – SVO Mustang 5-speed, 2.97 gears
0-60: 8.12 secs, 1/4 mile: 16.08 @ 86 mph
MT August 1984 – Mustang Police Interceptor, 5-speed, 3.27 gears
0-60: 6.86 sec, 1/4 mile: 15.33 @ 91.8 mph
MT October 1984 – Mustang GT, 5-speed, 2.73 gears
0-60: 7.08 sec, 1/4 Mile: 15.51 @ 89.7 mph
Hot Rod Sept 1986 – Mustang GT 5-Speed, 2.73 gears
0-60: 6.0 secs, 1/4 mile: 14.70 sec @ 92 mph
Car Craft, June 1986 – SVO Mustang (205 hp), 5-speed
0-60: n/a, 1/4 mile: 15.10 @ 91.85 secs
One correction, the 85 5.0 EFI with AOD went to 180hp mid year once they added the 85 style exhaust.
C/D – 2019 Bullit Mustang 480 hp
6 speed 3.73 gears
0-60: 4.4 sec, 1/4 mile: 12.6 sec @ 115 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/city/highway: 18/15/24 mpg
I had early econo cars that didn’t deliver this. Amazing that the idiots finally figured out that add some gears and you get closer to having your cake and eating it too.
We’ve come along way, baby!
Funny, taste is a personal thing. I remember liking the SVO styling from new. It was clean, sleek, and less tacky than many U.S. high performance cars of the day. Face it, we Americans loved our pony cars and mid sized muscle machines in the ’80’s, but the styling on a lot of them was like the guy in the lunchroom with the sweatbands and the straws hanging out of his nose. We thought it was cool back then, but look back on a lot of it ie and say “whew… look at THAT! Yikes!”
The ’84’ SVO’s recessed headlights looked kind of radical at the time, not bad….but when they finally got the fully flush headlights like the Mk VII, the SVO’s to me looked way better. Once you saw the 1985 1/2 and ’86, you kind of went “oh, THAT’S how it is SUPPOSED to look”. Lol.
People keep talking about the SVO suspension on a 5.0….but part of the reason it handled so well were the suspension mods COMBINED with the lighter weight of the turbo four setup, and having the small powerplant set all the way back in the engine compartment near the firewall. It basically made the SVO a front-mid-engined car.
Very balanced…something you seldom heard said about a Mustang then.
A GT with the SVO suspension would still have the extra weight of all the styling add ons, and still have a big ol’ iron block V-8 crammed between the front wheels. I loved ’em too, but they nose dived like a donkey, and would have never handled like an SVO. (Enthusiasts admitted that while a big improvement, the ’93 SVT Cobra 5.0 couldn’t touch an SVO on a road course, or in braking.) The five-ohs went fast in a straight line for less $$$ than most anything else that was as quick…but a 5.0 was as far from a true GT as you could get. The SVO was probably the first Mustang you could call a real GT with a straight face.
Problem was, most ‘Mericans in those days (myself included) had no idea what a real GT was. “GT? Means it has a V-8, right?” Lol.
The real disadvantage of the SVO is it was ahead of it’s time. It didn’t have the history and rep to convince import buyers to buy it, and the typical American enthusiast only cared how fast it went from 0-60. In fact, many American gearheads at the time did not see Euro influence as a good thing, but rather as something to be avoided. “European” performance cars were overteched, over priced, unreliable…. and usually owned by preppie jerks! Lol.
Although the suspension upgrades, tires and rear disc brakes made it a better track/handling car than the GT, the SVO was not faster. Typical 0-60 times for the 5.0-5 speed GT were in the low 7’s, while the quarter mile was closer to 15 flat. Not to mention if you wanted the SVO to move with real authority, you had to drive it like you stole to keep that turbo on the boil. The 2.3’s lack of smoothness made it feel pretty harsh in those upper RPMs. Still a cool car though.
I bought a 1984 Mustang GT, brand new, from Jerome-Duncan Ford in Sterling Heights, MI. My first new car! I was 19 years old.
I also test drove the new SVO, although I wouldn’t have been able to afford that back then. I figured that since I was going to be buying a car from them, that it was acceptable to take the SVO out for a ride, even though I wasn’t a serious buyer for it.
It definitely had a better ride than the GT, felt more substantial in the chassis and shocks and the acceleration was good, but it didn’t have the snap of the V-8, or the sound that young men want their car to sound like.
Somehow, I did end up with the SVO Hurst shifter in my GT when it arrived (much nicer, with leather knob) but I don’t know if the transmission was any different underneath.
If I could do it over again, I would have bought a 5.0 notchback Mustang and optioned it out accordingly. I don’t like hatchbacks anymore.
I don’t know why Ford (and also GM and Chrysler) played games with the speedometer faces to avoid numbers over 80 or 85. The law that required them was only in effect for about a year and a half, and some imports starting in 1983 reverted to 120mph speedos. Detroit persisted with 85mph speedometers into the ’90s for some reason.
I like the SVO but I would have gone with a GLX or LX 5.0 due to lower cost, better low-end torque, V8 smoothness, and nicer styling inside and out (the double spoilers etc are a bit much)
I lusted after the Mustang SVO when they came out, but I was not financially able to drive one. While this is a nice car, the shifter stands out as a sore point. It is too long and the vinyl boot looks awful.
My experience with the 2.3 /turbo was in an ’87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe that I orded and bought new. My car dealer father always told me to never buy an extended warranty unless you expected to abuse the product. When I purchased my ’87 T-Bird I was living in Michigan and working in central Indiana and drove back to Michigan for most of the weekends. Ford was actually offering a 6 year unlimited mileage powertrain warrenty! I bought it.
At 40,000 miles the turbocharger died and was replaced under warranty. That alone paid for the initial cost of the extended warranty.
At 5 years and 280,000 miles, the tranny was grinding on the 2-3 shift. While the dealer was test driving the car to verify the tranny problem, he blew the engine!!!
280,000 miles and I received a rebuilt engine and a rebuilt tranny under warranty. I have never purchased an extended warranty again, and tho I have kept several of my cars over 250,000 miles, I have never needed the extended warrany again.
I bought a 84 Capri RS Turbo and my brother got an 84 Mustang GT 5.0. Both had the TRX suspension with 220/55/VR390 wheels. His had Quadra Shock and mine had traction bars. My Capri could get him across the intersection but as soon as he hooked up and got into 2nd gear it was all over. But mine was so much lighter that it really did feel much more agile. Those seats were Recaros and were all day comfortable.
The Lima 2.3 was just a beast…..I beat that thing like a dog and it still was going strong when I sold it at 70K miles. It was rough and loud and the wastegate whistled like a steam engine but it was just a blast to drive.
I like the SVO, and it’s probably the Fox-body Mustang I’d most like, but in hindsight it was completely predictable that it’d be a slow seller despite being a car mag darling. I doubt even the most die-hard, mullet-sporting, “where’s my V8” car guy would prefer the GT after driving them back-to-back on a real, twisty road – but most Americans don’t have those roads handy (try finding one in KS or OK!), and no matter how much you love the SVO, it’s hard to argue on fun-per-dollar, plus the hop-up potential of the 5.0.
For the SVO to have sold, it needed to be aspirational, so not a “Ford,” but a brand Ford never built. People point to to unsophisticated motor and solid axle (and who wouldn’t want a dual-cam engine and IRS), but buyers would still walk right past and buy a BMW. The same thing happened with the Taurus SHO. As it was, I think the SVO could have done well under the right brand, but that would have taken something like Merkur with a lot better planning and more effort, or a completely re-imagined Mercury. Instead, it was fits and starts, and I doubt most yuppie Benz/Bimmer buyers even knew when there was something they’d find interesting on the Ford lot.
I can’t help but compare this from affar to my Porsche 924 turbo (aka 931). Both had a stout but thrashy engine – something Porsche addressed for the 944, although it’s also more fragile. One thing that frustrates me about most turbo cars like this is the turbo is always too small – to fight turbo lag, but it sacrifices significant top end power and efficiency; those little turbos put out more heat than boost on the top end. Both made use of pedestrian underpinnings, but the 931 likely wins the handling contest thanks to nearly even weight distribution, less weight overall, and independent rear. The SVO would easily best the 931 for daily use – the HVAC on the 924s was pretty crude, and the seating is very low with a fixed steering wheel that makes ingress/egress a challenge even for a smaller guy like me. They’re both kind of polarizing in terms of looks – the 924 has a simple, pleasing shape some call “boring,” while the flashier SVO is more dated with some arguably overdone elements.
One disappointment for me is that the SVO didn’t have pop-up headlights and wasn’t offered from the factory with T-tops. It seems you could get a sunroof, but it’s tiny compared to the 931’s panel. So the 931 wins on my 80’s wish list. Now, sure, the turbo and removable roof were mixed blessings, but I’ve gotta have ’em. We didn’t care about turbo lag, breakdowns, or leaks when we first laid eyes on these amazing features as car-struck youths. We thought our Dads were the most boring people in the world because they drove a car with a solid roof, fixed headlights, and no turbo. We all knew some day we’d buy that car with all the right stuff and never give it up. And don’t tell 10-year-old me it’s noisy, cramped, expensive, and failure-prone! That’s what a boring grown-up would say.
“The same thing happened with the Taurus SHO.” Well, Hemmings.com had this to say about the initial run of SHO (1989, 1990, 1991):
Unsure of the Taurus SHO’s sales potential, Ford initially planned it as a single-year model. Halfway through the 1989 model year, it became clear that the SHO was a hit among performance-starved sedan buyers, so Ford promptly placed orders for additional Yamaha engines and Mazda transmissions to carry production through the 1993 model year. In its freshman year, Ford sold 15,519 Taurus SHOs, followed by 8,302 in 1990 and 8,916 in 1991, and each model year brought with it minor changes. The 1990 Taurus SHO received a new interior and standard antilock brakes, while the 1991 version got a stouter clutch, 16-inch wheels and (mid-way through the year) an improved shifter linkage.
And this from Google about the BMW M3 and M5 of the same vintage (USA sales):
1989 BMW M3 (E30)
• Total U.S. Allocation: BMW built a total of 5,300 North American-spec E30 M3 coupes across the entire 1988–1991 model-year run (with overall U.S. sales/allocations estimated around 5,115 to 5,300 units depending on how holdovers are counted).
• Annual Breakdown: BMW did not break out official calendar-year sales for 1989 alone, though annual estimates generally placed U.S. production/sales around 1,600 units for that period of the lifecycle.
• Note on Variants: The E30 M3 convertible (786 built) and special editions like the Johnny Cecotto or Sport Evolution were never officially sold new in the United States.
1989 BMW M5 (E34)
• Total U.S. Allocation: For the second-generation E34 M5 (introduced to North America for the 1991 model year, with production starting late 1989 in Germany), 1,678 left-hand-drive units were earmarked total for the North American market.
One more thing as far as the ’89 SHO was concerned: My brother had an ’88 BMW M5, and once he experienced the performance of my ’89 SHO, he went and bought an ’89 SHO to be his daily driver. It was that good. Yes, stock the M5 was good for 6-7 more mph top end than the stock SHO, but his ’88 M5 sticker was 2.5 times as much as the ’89 SHO.
If you are able to get to the Simone Foundation Automotive Museum in Philadelphia October 10-25-2026 they have Fox body on exhibit:
1979 Mustang Cobra
1980 Mustang Race Car
1984 Mustang 20th Anniversary Edition
1984 Mustang GT Turbo
1984 Mustang GT/Cobra Clone
1985 Mustang GT
1985 Mustang GTO
1986 Mercury Capri ASC McLaren Coupe
1986 Mustang
1986 Mustang GT
1986 Mustang SVO Competition Prep
1987 Turbo Thunderbird
1987 Mustang GT Drag Car
1988 Mustang GT
1988 Saleen Mustang
1988 Mustang LX Coupe
1989 Mustang LX Coupe
1989 Saleen Mustang SSC
1989 Mustang LX 5.0 Rallye Cross Build
1990 Mustang Convertible 7UP
1991 Mustang LX
1992 Mustang GT
1992 Mustang LX 5.0
1992 Mustang LX Coupe SSP (State Police Car)
1993 Mustang GT
1993 Mustang LX 5.0 Convertible
I had ’83, ’84, ’87, and ”88 Turbo Coupes, and extensively drove a new 1984 SVO for a while as a company car of sorts.
Was exciting to witness the evolution of the 2.3L Turbo over this time. I don’t remember these cars having as narrow a power band as some do. Of them all, though, the SVO had the most aggressive torque buildup when you got into the turbo. Was just a terrific car for joisting with all the Sunday morning Bikers on the roads along the hills west of the San Mateo Bay on the way to Half Moon Bay, or on (IIRC) Highway 84 out to the Pacific. But you had to be careful…a friend who drove a BMW 3 series at the time nearly stuffed that SVO over the edge of a wooded canyon road when the turbo boost came on with much more power than he expected. Sadly, most of the roads in the US (flat and straight) would not allow the SVO to show its mettle. And Ford dealers, geared for high volume, were not really set up to sell this specialized a car. Which was one of the primary reasons that the SVT program that followed nearly a decade later was restricted to those Ford dealers who really had an itching to set aside a special process for selling to the hard-core, sophisticated car guys out there.
Hmm….somewhere around here pretty sure I still have that knob for adjusting those Koni front shock absorbers that came with the SVO deliveries….TIM