Yes.
Photography Credit: David S. Wallens
We lived through the ’80s and ’90s and spent a lot of time with the era’s greatest hits–drove them, raced them, even knew them when they still had that new car smell. We fondly remember shopping for Kamei air dams, Hella lamps and 14-inch tires.
But were the cars of those times really that rad?
We wondered that ourselves, so we ditched the rose-colored glasses for a few to take a look back. Were they all winners, or did a few duds get released? Let’s slip on some Vans, break out the vinyl and take a trip back in time.
This week, we're looking back at the Ford Mustang Fox-Body–and that rad mullet J.G. used to rock.
Nostalgia has been kind to these cars, because the truth is they really aren’t great out of the box. By 1987, when the Mustang GT gained its “ground effect” styling kit, the 302 engine was decent–port fuel injection, a roller cam, new-for-’87 forged pistons and improved heads–but still a 225-horsepower wheezer lump by any modern standard.
The chassis was also, uh, underwhelming. The primary flaw of the Fox chassis–shared with such performance legends as the Ford LTD and Fairmont–was a non-parallel, four-link rear suspension that tended to bind when roll or squat angles got too big.
Then again, the Fox chassis isn’t loved so much as a finished work but as a blank canvas–which is good, because finding a stock one these days is nearly impossible. Fix the rear suspension with parts from one of many aftermarket suppliers, double the factory power with a crate motor, upgrade the brakes and suspension, and then hit the track.
My 1990 Mustang eventually had a mild 302 with the P-series truck heads that were good for a few extra horsepower, a full suspension from Steeda and some excellent Baer brakes paired with 17-inch wheels from a later Mustang.
Verdict: Lousy car but a great starting point for a project.
Yes.
Absolutely.
That and the s13 Nissan and maybe the GM G-body
that photo is amazing!
I think it's definitely true if you include all Fox chassis cars
From a GM guy its hard to beat the fox chassis, 4 cylinder through 8 cylinders, na or turbo (the supercoupe wasnt fox right), manual or auto, sedan, wagon or coupe, cheap parts, good looks, light weight, cheap, capable, rwd, and a massive aftermarket filled with inexpensive quality parts.
I think the closest thing GM has is maybe the G body, which I love but given an option between the 2 I might have to choose the fox most of the time.
As a chassis it has two major weaknesses: Rear suspension design and lack of overall stiffness. Fortunately, the aftermarket has both covered.
I came >this< close to buying another one in the past few weeks before settling on the S197 I ended up getting. They are going up in value, and I wasn't happy with what I could find in my budget without having to drive 5 states away. Plus, while I don't mind a project, making a Fox handle and stop like a modern car is still a major undertaking that's not cheap.
Opti said:(the supercoupe wasnt fox right)
The Turbo Coupe was a Fox and the Super Coupe was an MN12, an arguably better chassis.
buzzboy said:Opti said:(the supercoupe wasnt fox right)
The Turbo Coupe was a Fox and the Super Coupe was an MN12, an arguably better chassis.
A better design, to be sure, but much heavier.
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
The MN12 was really fun when shortened by 8". These were built down the road from me and I got a ride in the T-Bird back in the day.
Lof8 - Andy said:that photo is amazing!
Probably one of my favorite photos from the archives, tbh.
That mullet lives on in our hearts and minds.
Displaying 1-10 of 59 commentsView all comments on the GRM forums
You'll need to log in to post.
