Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doing this from my iPhone. Hope you can see the photo in the link. This is an example of the SVO Mustang. Wikipedia has a full page just on this limited idition model. In 1986, they got their 2.3L turbo up to 215 HP and 250 torque. The 5.0 V8 was making about the same horsepower at the time. It had 200 HP and 285 torque.
It's also worth noting that the styling changes that showed up throughout the Mustang line in 1987, which are widely considered to be the best-styled Mustangs of the 80s/Fox-body era, were ushered in by the 1984 Mustang SVO.
It's also worth noting that the styling changes that showed up throughout the Mustang line in 1987, which are widely considered to be the best-styled Mustangs of the 80s/Fox-body era, were ushered in by the 1984 Mustang SVO.
1984 Mustang GT:
1984 Mustang SVO:
1987 Mustang GT:
The Mustangs pictured are widely considered to be the worst-styled Mustangs in Mustang history....and many, like me, consider them below worthiness of the Mustang name.
As disappointing as the Mustang II was, it was still a better looking car than these hideous things that followed. Mustang wandered lost and aimlessly until 2005.
The Mustangs pictured are widely considered to be the worst-styled Mustangs in Mustang history....and many, like me, consider them below worthiness of the Mustang name.
As disappointing as the Mustang II was, it was still a better looking car than these hideous things that followed. Mustang wandered lost and aimlessly until 2005.
Umm, he said the best styled of the Fox era,...not the best styled of all Mustangs. And you're eyes should be checked if you think the Pinto Mustang looked better than the 80s Mustang.
Umm, he said the best styled of the Fox era,...not the best styled of all Mustangs. And you're eyes should be checked if you think the Pinto Mustang looked better than the 80s Mustang.
I know what he said...and what I said was to emphasize how big picture ugly those 3rd generation Mustangs were.
I said the Mustang II was disappointing - and that was largely because it was a Pinto underneath. Opinions do vary on styling and I say again again that Mustang IIs were better than what followed.
Unfortunately it seems more of a move to comply with upcoming CAFE standards rather then consumer demand. I think few drivers of Mustangs want them to be less powerful. Not a good thing, I think we are entering another period of disappointing downsized engines again. The feds have learned nothing about the last time in the 1970's and the destruction it caused to the big three. It has become infamous for its neutered and lousy cars.
You can see it in many vehicles, the Explorer has a V6 instead of a V8. The upcoming Chevy Malibu will not offer a V6. Ford is pushing V6's in F150 knowing that V8's are going to get rarer. I think the auto industry isn't out of the woods yet as the new regulations are really getting piled up lately. Crash regs add a lot to the weight of new cars, probably the main reason mileage hasn't increased much in the last decade. They will end up with vehicles nobody wants because the rules will be ahead of the technology again.
I think you are just making sweeping generalizations just because of cylinder count rather than the actual performance attributes. The new F150 V6 does 0-60 in about 6 seconds and has tons of torque,- quicker than the V8 Lightning- the Explorer V6 has almost exactly the same HP and torque as the previous generation's V8.
Sure some guys will always want a V8 but as long as the performance is still there most won't care. My 4 cylinder WRX goes very well thank you very much.
One always has to rememeber that gettig more from smaller engine always has consequences. Likely this is purely to get to CAFE numbers than what peope prefer in making horse power.We have often seen comnies poush and even discout such thinsg to boost CAFE numbers in order to safe gruard the big blacok gas gusslers. ECO boost isn't some new magic thign 'its ben know for eyars. Ist just shows what comaonies will do to get 1MPG to alow other lies to contim=nue ebcause they are where the money is made from what people would buy if they had pure choice. I don't drive any V8s but I'd love to have some of the ones I drove in the past for their pure power and feel.
I don't see a problem with this. A lot of Mustang drivers like the image but don't necessarily care for performance--i.e., all of the V6 automatics out there. A four-banger option would matter to those buyers, since it would provide a decent increase in fuel economy with little loss to performance.
I know what he said...and what I said was to emphasize how big picture ugly those 3rd generation Mustangs were.
I said the Mustang II was disappointing - and that was largely because it was a Pinto underneath. Opinions do vary on styling and I say again again that Mustang IIs were better than what followed.
I think the Fox Body Mustangs were great looking cars after their midcycle facelift. The Mustang II was one ugly mutha, looked like a baby LTD of that era, which isn't a compliment... frumpy, ill-conceived little beast...
I think the Fox Body Mustangs were great looking cars after their midcycle facelift. The Mustang II was one ugly mutha, looked like a baby LTD of that era, which isn't a compliment... frumpy, ill-conceived little beast...
Beauty or ugly is in the mind of the beholder and opinions will vary irreconcilably. We simply disagree.
I will say the Fox-4 redesign for '94 was a vast improvement over the forgettable '79-'93s.
My historical favorites are the '69 and '70, so it was great to see the 2005s reminiscent of that look.
Beauty or ugly is in the mind of the beholder and opinions will vary irreconcilably. We simply disagree.
I will say the Fox-4 redesign for '94 was a vast improvement over the forgettable '79-'93s.
My historical favorites are the '69 and '70, so it was great to see the 2005s reminiscent of that look.
I certainly agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I thought the 94's were the second worst after the II! Haha. 05-up, I like. The classics from the 60's and early 70's, I love. The post-87 facelifted Foxes, I love too...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Mustangs pictured are widely considered to be the worst-styled Mustangs in Mustang history....and many, like me, consider them below worthiness of the Mustang name. 
