| |
Technical Analysis & Driving Impression
Mustang II - A new interpretation of the original Mustang idea
By John Dinkel
|
Ford's MUSTANG II is the result of corporate thinking very similar to that which produced the first Mustang production car in mid-1964. That Mustang, which is history now, was conceived as a compact, sporty-looking and reasonably priced car, and we all know how much that combination appealed to American car buyers. In the intervening years Mustang grew into something quite different-see the companion story on its evolution-while carmakers abroad took up the Mustang idea and did good things with it. The resulting cars then came to the U.S. market-Ford's own Capri, the Toyota Celica, the Opel Manta-and began to capture the young buyers' dollars just as the original Mustang had. Meanwhile the Mustang and all its domestic imitators peaked and declined, all the while getting bigger, fancier and more expensive.
The Mustang II is Ford U.S.'s attempt to recapture the wandering Mustang market with a 1970s version of the sporty but economical car, and it's built to a smaller scale-though not so small as that of the imported ponycars.
Henry Ford himself has admitted that his cars have a tendency to grow and grow, and perhaps his executives allow it to happen without really thinking about it. During Ford's annual stockholders' meeting in 1968, a lady stood up and asked Ford President Lee Iacocca why the company didn't still build a car like the 1965 Mustang she still owned. "I'll have my people look into the matter," replied Iacocca. He didn't forget his promise; when he addressed the company's top management in November 1969 he called the need for such a car one of Ford's top priorities.
Work on a new Mustang started as a competition between various styling departments within Ford (much as with the earlier Mustang) plus the now Ford-owned Ghia carrozzeria in Italy. From the many proposals, five were selected to be built in clay: four fastbacks and one notchback. The one closest to the production car was a fastback design from the Lincoln Mercury studios. Marketing research, that always active designer of American cars, told Ford to produce the new car only as a fastback; but one last survey in San Francisco pointed to a strong preference for a notchback, so both types were scheduled for production.
The new car, like the old, is produced in several versions as well as more than one basic body type. In the fastback-called a 3-door because it has a large rear batch-you'll be able to order a 2-seater with large carpeted cargo area, a 2+2 and a sportier Mach 1. In the notchback coupe there's a standard version and a more luxurious Grande-though the latter may be called Ghia, horrors, by introduction time. In any version except the 2-seater, the car is planned as a 4-seater with tight rear seating and individual front seats contoured rather like those of some sporting European cars. An optional fold-down rear seatback is available in all 4-seaters to extend luggage space. Some interesting standard items are front disc brakes, a pullup center handbrake, taillights with separate lenses for separate functions including amber turn signals, and a 6000-rpm tachometer paired equal-size with the speedometer.
That the new car is only 6.6 in. shorter than the 1965 would be a surprise if we didn't remember the length requirements of 5-mph impact bumpers at both ends. Its 2-in. greater width is a surprise in any case, as is its curb weight: the basic 4-cylinder notchback coupe weighs 2680 lb, actually a bit more than the 6-cyl 1965 car and a good 400 lb heavier than the Toyota.
The relationship between Mustang 11 and Ford's Pinto is a touchy subject at Ford; early reports of the new Mustang being a spinoff from the Pinto caused hard feelings there. The two are related, just as the original production Mustang and Falcons and Fairlanes were and to about the degree we expected, but there's an unexpected backward twist to the story of the Pinto-Mustang 11 relationship.
There's very little shared between Pinto and Mustang bodies-only the rear floor platform of the unit structure from the rear axle to the rear bumper. But the suspension units are basically the same, though the backward twist is that the Mustang engineers found the need for some important changes in the Pinto components and had to convince the Pinto people the changes were worthwhile to get them. The result is that the Pinto gets most of the improvements for 1974.
Suspension, Steering & Brakes
FRONT SUSPENSION of the Mustang II is that of the Pinto, with one important difference; it has conventional unequal-length upper and lower arms with coil springs on the lower arms rather than the high-mounted coils of earlier Mustangs. The lower arm, a simple lateral link, is augmented as on the Pinto by a backward-angling compression strut, but on the Mustang this leads to a rubber-mounted subframe rather than the main body structure. This subframe, suspended on six rubber doughnuts between the front side rails of the underbody, is rectangular and carries the rear of the engine-transmission unit. A portion of road shock is routed to the subframe by the compression struts, so this disturbance has to go through two "layers" of rubber in series to get to the main structure. This means that the individual pieces of rubber can be hard but the harshness isolation good; Ford claims the arrangement allows a better compromise between steering precision and ride than one finds in certain contemporary GT cars which shall remain nameless.
A compression strut allows the wheel to move slightly rearward when it hits a bump; in addition, the upper A-arm is angled to encourage the same movement. The advantage of this rearward movement in reducing harshness is well known, and it's particularly important when radial tires are going to be used; they are used on the Mustang 11 although its standard tires are bias-type.
Isolating the rear engine mount from the main structure also plays an important part in reducing engine and drivetrain vibrations felt by passengers, particularly with an inline 4-cyl engine. A subframe such as this might be called a luxury feature in this context; the lower-priced Pinto doesn't get it but the basic Mustang will be around $3000 and there was budget for it.
Rack-and-pinion steering is also shared with the Pinto, but the Mustang can be ordered with power assist and its steering gear is mounted differently to the body for better shock isolation. The steering has a certain amount of compliance steer: as the front wheel moves back and up with bumps or body roll, it toes out slightly. This introduces negative feedback into the steering and contributes to understeer.
Another area where the Mustang improved the Pinto was the rear suspension. The leaf springs are 2 in. longer and the rear shocks are now staggered to control axle tramp: the left behind the axle, the right ahead of it. The Mustang has rubber iso-clamps eliminating metal-to-metal contact between the live axle and the springs and the spring hangers at both ends of the leaf springs are liberally rubber-isolated.
Spring rates are chosen by computer according to the options fitted to the particular car being assembled, as is the practice with some other U.S. carmakers, but there are specific suspension variations for different customers' tastes too. The Grande comes with softer-than-standard settings; an optional "competition" suspension package is of more interest. With this the standard 0.75-in. front anti-roll bar is replaced with one of 0.95-in. diameter; at the rear one of 0.69-in. diameter is added and this can be installed on a Pinto once the brackets have been added to it. Spring rates go up 10-15 percent, and Gabriel adjustable shocks are included in the package too.
Engines & Transmissions
MUSTANG II is available with two engines: a 2.3-liter inline four with single overhead camshaft and a 2.8-liter V-6 with pushrods. Surprisingly, neither has much in common with its predecessor. The 2.3-liter is the first American engine designed to metric measurements. It was originally planned as a U.S. copy of the 2.0-liter unit produced in England and Germany, the German unit used in Pintos and Capris sold here. But bore was to be increased as well as stroke; stroking alone would have put shaking forces in the engine out of acceptable range. Ford engineers wanted larger-diameter main bearings also, and they wanted hydraulic tappets for quiet running and reduced maintenance. In the end very little was interchangeable between the 2.0 and 2.3 fours.
Starting virtually from scratch had its advantages. Computer analysis showed that the 2.3 wanted engine mounts farther forward than the 2.0's for best vibration suppression. Options and emission control dictated further changes. Mustang II offers power steering, and for California cars an air pump is used, so an accessory drive and space for these items had to be provided.
An interesting emission-oriented new feature is something Ford calls "monolithic engine timing." Ignition timing is critical to emission control, and to reduce the normal production variations in timing, the 2.3 includes built-in probe locations for an electronic timing device used after the engine is assembled. A computer printer is connected to two sensing sources: a transducer which records the passing of a machined location indicator at the rear of the crankshaft and a sensitive electrical pickup attached to the wire between distributor and coil. The computer compares these two inputs and operates an automatic distributor setting device to get a precise initial setting so the engine can meet the California-required emission check at the end of the assembly line.
The 2.8-liter V-6, like the 2.3 four, is essentially new although more components-cam, valve train, rods and distributor-are carryovers from the 2.6-liter used in current Capris. Designers couldn't satisfactorily achieve the 2.8 capacity by just stroking, so they bored and this required a new block. This gave them opportunity to correct some of the V-6's deficiencies. The siamesed exhaust ports of the 2.6 are restrictive, so the new engine has separate ports both for better performance and to accommodate the space requirements of a thermal exhaust reactor that may have to be added later to meet 1975 or 1976 regulations. For now a simple exhaust air-injection system with air pump is used on all 2.8 V-6s, not just California-bound ones. For those interested in upgrading their 2.6-liter V-6s, the new heads and manifolding will fit as a unit. The V-6 is optional on all Mustangs but the Mach 1, on which it is standard, and comes with a dual exhaust system. It is built in Cologne, Germany as the 2.6 was.
A new Ford-designed 4-speed manual transmission, built by Borg-Warner, is standard. It's based on the same design concept as the Pinto's British 4-speed, with single-rail shift mechanism, but is beefier to handle the larger engines. By extensive use of diecast aluminum for the case, the engineers have kept it just 3 lb heavier than the Pinto unit. It's exclusive to the Mustang; for the Pinto with its optional 2.3 engine the old box is improved by a stronger 1st gear only. For now the C-4 Ford automatic transmission (three speeds with torque converter) is the optional automatic, but a smaller, lighter automatic is being readied for the Mustang.
Cooling an engine is much more difficult with today's emission control, and the Mustang II has to have a small "chin" spoiler under its front bumper to get additional air into the radiator when the automatic transmission is specified.
Structure & Weight
HERE THE Mustang II suffers, by Ford's own admission, something of an over-reaction to present or expected government safety-damageability edicts. It's 400-500 lb heavier than any of its direct competition-Celica, Capri, Opel Manta-although we have only their 1973 weights, not the 1974 figures which are likely to be up by 50-75 lb for the same reasons. Mustang II's recoverable bumper systems add 96 lb; roof rollover reinforcement and side door beams add their shares. Having two body types compounds the weight penalties; the rest of the body, both notchback and hatchback, had to be designed to compensate for the loss of rigidity due to the large rear opening. Ford says these things account for most of the 400-lb difference; in any case they render the new notchback 1301b heavier than the 1965 car, both in basic form!
Driving Impressions
The HEAVY weight, combined with limited interior dimensions, conspires to render the Mustang II something of an enigma: it's difficult to know whether it's a small car with big-car feel or a big car trying to act small. Seating is cramped, with the transmission tunnel intruding on one side and the heavily padded and "beamed" doors closing in on the other; a very low seating position contributes to the confined feeling and drivers of average height may have trouble seeing over the hood. The rear seats are purely occasional; their knees-into-chin seating makes the Pinto back seat seem spacious.
Outward vision is not a strong point either, but we never expect this to be good in a U.S. car. Instrumentation is set into a wraparound panel reminiscent of the big Fords-all concentrated close to the driver-and standard models have a simulated wood motif; the gauges are nicely visible and easy to read and heater and radio controls are close at hand. Dash-level vents are provided, certainly a necessity with no window ventwings but expected in any new design.
One of the designers' aims was to make the car as plush and comfortable as possible, and here they've generally succeeded. The seats look as if they might have been taken from a Thunderbird; no rake adjustment is provided but they seem reasonably comfortable. Cut-pile carpeting is standard.
There is one gain but there are several losses in the restraint department. Seatbelts are permanently fixed to the shoulder belts, the good news; but 1974 is the Year of the Interlock and we can't even start our cars without doing up the belts. To belt up one must pull the lap portion out without hesitation, meanwhile unwinding the shoulder strap, all to prevent the belt ratchet from locking prematurely. The shoulder strap is on an inertia reel, which gives the upper body freedom of movement, but I wonder why the whole thing wasn't put on an inertia reel as it is in the 1974 Capri.
A complex override circuit prevents the engine from stopping if the belts are now undone, but a buzzer sounds. There were plenty of problems and failures with these contraptions at the press introduction and I'll bet 1974 is going to be the year of infuriated drivers and passengers all around the country. The government requires it-not the people-and one wonders just what "representative government" is.
I sampled five different Mustangs at Ford's Michigan Proving Ground. As for performance, all I can say is that none of them was exciting. The 4-cylinders with either manual or automatic are leisurely in acceleration, and the V-6-which used to be so nice in the Capri-is so hindered by the weight and emission controls it seems hard-pressed to do its job. I did get to try a Capri, however, with the same engine; and its lighter weight really gives it a solid advantage over the Mustang.
The standard rack-and-pinion steering, with 4.1 turns lock-to-lock and plenty of weight on the front end, is relatively heavy and slow. The power steering, however, is typically American: too light. But at least it's quicker and it has less lash than the recirculating-ball steering of bigger Fords. On the softer Grande, I found a feel of excessive rubber slowing steering response, and on all the Mustangs I drove there was a noticeable lack of suspension travel available-another typical U.S. sacrifice, always in the interest of the lowest possible silhouette.
On the positive side, the standard brakes behave well, and because the optional vacuum assist isn't overpowering and the car is heavy, it's worth ordering. This also gives a slightly better relationship between accelerator and brake-pedal heights for heel-and-toe shifting.
The only model an enthusiast will consider is the Mach 1 or at least a standard model with its main features fitted as separate options. Over and above the standard V-6 engine and BR70-13 radial tires, the Mach I available to me at the proving ground had the competition suspension, wider CR70-13 radials on the optional 51/2-in. rims (5-inchers are standard), and power steering/ brakes. With the adjustable shocks at their hardest setting, this Mustang ig a crisp-handling car and the ride still isn't overly harsh-over rough pavement it's similar to a Datsun 240Z. Cornered fast, the Mach 1 set up this way is nearly neutral, with little change in attitude when the throttle or brakes are played with, and roll is well controlled by the front and rear bars. Bumps encountered when cornering are dealt with better than in the Capri, interestingly, and the hopping rear axle of old Mustangs is gone.
To justify its production the Mustang had to appeal to a wide segment of the market-just as the 1964 car did-from the housewife to the enthusiastic driver. The option list is several pages long so that the car can be tailored to a variety of tastes; it shouldn't be difficult to run up a price tag of $4500. But, as usual with such a compromised design, the Mustang lacks the excitement of a more single-purpose car like the 240Z or even the crisp European feel of its cousin the Capri. To me it's slightly maddening to know that there are people at Ford who could have made the Mustang a real driver's car but who are prevented from accomplishing it because of corporate politics and a very high corporate moment of inertia. Ah well, the dream was nice while it lasted.
|
|
