| |
The Rebirth of the Mustang
Part 2 - The Curtain Goes Up
By John Christy
|
WATKINS GLEN, New York (October 1963) - Members of the international press corps at the United States Grand Prix were gathered quietly before a curtained tent perched on a hill in a fenced-off enclosure above the paddock. They had been invited to witness the unveiling of a prototype car that carried with it the reputation, and quite possibly the future, of a very upward-mobile young man about whom the opinion-makers had been talking much as they would a few years later about another equally upward-mobile young man named John Zachary Delorean. "Probably the most ingenious automotive merchandising expert since General Motors' hard-selling Harlow Curtice" was Time magazine's description of the man in its cover story.
The car behind the curtain was the product of three years of gestation and a good bit of selling to top Ford Motor Company management, often over objections. I had Mr. Ford's name on it and some $50 million of Mr. Ford's money riding on it. It was entirely new and memories of the Edsel were still fresh. A career and the car itself quite possibly hung on the reception it would get here and subsequent private showings.
The curtains of the tent parted and the reputation and future of Lido Anthony Iacocca were virtually assured. The reception was unanimously favorable. The car, of course, was the Mustang (called the Mustang II at the time since there was a previous Mustang prototype) and it was, after three years as general manager of the Ford Division, the first car Lee Iacocca could call his own. It was Iacocca's baby, nurtured from concept drawings through clay buck to the finished, driveable prototype shown and tooling was al but set up to produce a run that was to total 418,812 in the first year of production. It would, in its various marks and mods, lead what would become known as the "pony car race" for eight more years and help carry Lee Iacocca to the presidency of the Ford Motor Co. It would also gain weight and girth as the years went by until it became fat with age and no longer able to run swiftly either on the track or the marketplace. In its ninth year the Mustang, grown to a plump plug of its former self, would be marked for retirement, swollen not only with years but honors as well.
ROMEO, Michigan (June 1973) - Once again members of the automotive press had been gathered to attend the annual rite known in the trade as the "long-lead" preview of a manufacturer's line of automobiles for the coming year. But this time there was a difference. This time they were invited not only to view but to touch, handle and drive Lee Iacocca's new baby, significantly enough also called Mustang II. A total departure from the fat old horse of the recent past, it was and is a reversion, a rebirth if you will, of the Mustang of '64-'65 - smaller and even more lithe in feel that the original pacesetter - a pony for the '70s.
The tension among Ford Division personnel in attendance could be felt almost as a tangible vibration in the air. These were no pre-production prototypes. This was the real thing. Commitments. What would be the reception?
The aura of anxiety was not helped by at least two factors. This was not, for the most part, the sophisticated press corps of Watkins Glen - only a very few present had attended the original 1963 Glen preview. These opinion-makers were younger and more attuned to the muscle cars of the recent past than to the nimble European compact sports sedan which was the Mustang's - and Iacocca's - target. Also, in 1964, imports held only about six percent of the total U.S. market and the majority of these were either outright wind-in-the-face sports cars or fusty little econo-cars. There were no sporty sedans such as the BMW, Capri, Fiat 124-S, Audi, Opel Manta Rallye or even such surrogates as the Toyota Celica. The Mustang of '64 had a ready-made market with no occupants going in. Mustang II, on the other hand, is coming into a field already invaded by a fair amount of fairly desirable property. Iacocca had gambled another multi-million dollar slice of Mr. Ford's money (although on apparently firmer ground) on his new baby and the vibrations were coming right down the table of the organization.
The question practically shimmered in the air: "How does it compare? In our considered opinion, the Mustang II, with a few odd shortcomings, holds up to the light of comparison very well indeed. Iacocca's new baby was not stillborn nor does it have any serious birth defects - the odd blemish, perhaps, but nothing incurable. Even the first Mustang had a birth-blemish or two; they spent the first two years making running changes faster than you could count them.
There are actually two new Mustangs, not one, and five models from stark to either plush or solidly quick with 36 single options and five group options for the customer to tailor his own brand of pony, assuming the dealer has sense enough to let him. In essence, what is offered is a choice of either a mini '65 fastback Mustang or a mini XR-7 Cougar.
When the first Mustang was announced, there were three engine options and then, almost immediately a fourth, the famous 289 cu. in. high performance that belted out a lusty 271 real horsepower. This time around there are only two, the new metric four cylinder with 2.3 liters displacement built in Lima, Ohio, and the German-built V-6 punched out to 2.8 liters and fitted with the new heads. Don't look for a latter-day V-6 version of the 289/271 to appear, though - not unless things change at the Federal level or Ford gets some sort of breakthrough with injection along the lines of the viciously strong German version of the Capri. That, at least, is in the realm of the possible but it won't come along as quickly as did the 289/271. The four, incidentally, is not a bored-out 2-liter but a complete new engine with no interchangeability with the old 2-liter.
There are also two transmission options - or, rather, on standard manual, a new U.S.-built four-speed, and an optional three-speed automatic. The four-speed unit replaces the older German box that proved in some instances not to have quite enough strength when coupled behind the V-6 in the Capri. The ratios appear to be well chosen but the throws are a bit long and quite widely spaced - one of the birth-blemishes mentioned. The automatic is smooth and positive and, at least with the V-6, doesn't seem to tax performance to any serious degree, particularly in normal driving which is what it's meant for. Unlike the '64, there is no manual three-speed.
As was the original Mustang, the Mustang II is an all-new car from the ground up. Particular attention was paid to the suspension in accordance with Iacocca's instructions to gent in and compete with the Europeans. The coil spring front suspension is different from previous Mustangs in that the coils and shock absorbers now bear on the lower control arm instead of the upper arm, a configuration that reduces transfer of road shocks to the body structure. As an added bonus the spring towers no longer intrude into the engine space. The single-pivot lower control arms are located by a compression-type strut angled inward to the rear and anchored to an isolated subframe suspended between the front rail extensions of the unitized body-frame. Much of the road shock is thus routed into the semi-floating structure and dissipated into the mass of the engine-transmission assembly. It also allows a slight amount of rearward motion to the wheel for better compliance. In addition the geometry of the suspension is arranged to allow controlled rearward motion on jounce giving further road compliance. A link-type stabilizer bar is standard. The whole effect is to impart a considerable body-on-frame, big-car effect on what is essentially a small-car, unitized construction.
The rear suspension is also different from previous practice. It is still live-axle, leaf sprung but there is almost total isolation of attachment points, even between the axle housings and springs. But butyl-rubber iso-clamps surround the springs where they are clamped to the axles, eliminating metal-to-metal contact. The rear shackles incorporate extra-large bushings, 1 7/8 inches in diameter as opposed to the more normal one-inch size. Shock absorbers are stagger mounted, the left one behind the axle and right one in front to counter tendency toward rear-wheel hop. In addition there is an optional "competition" suspension consisting of a rear stabilizer (anti-roll) bar, heavy-duty front and rear springs and three-way adjustable shock absorbers. As will be seen, it is a valuable option on any Mustang and a "must" option on the Mach 1.
As mentioned previously, there are two types and five basic models, three in fastback form and two notchbacks. Here's the run-down:
FASTBACK
Two-passenger: This one is the base car and, incidentally, the first two-passenger car built by Ford since the last two-seat T-bird. It comes standard with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine, manual four-speed box and A78x13 blackwall tires; everything else is optional. Actually it's not as bare as one might think since it is basically the same as all the other hatch/fastbacks, other than the Mach 1, except that the back seats have not been installed. The cavern behind the front seats is commodious indeed. In reality there isn't all that much to be missed since Iacocca at the outset initiated that all the Mustangs be "jewel-like" (his words) so the interior is much the same as the other fastbacks. No cheap seats and rubber floor covering here - all have cut pile carpeting throughout. Even wit the base engine, it still has more than fair performance since it is lighter by the weight of the seats and ancillary hardware. In its zero-option form it would be just the ticket for the likes of an impecunious rock-band drummer, an optimistic Fuller Brush salesman or, perhaps, a young couple with a very large dog. In an emergency it could be used for carrying an over indulgent friend home from a party. Just open the hatch, stuff him in and lay him out in dignity.
All the Mustangs can be ordered with any of the options available. In fact, if one felt that he couldn't go the price of the fully-optioned Mach 1 at the beginning he could order the two-passenger with the V-6 and heavy duty or "competition" suspension only and add the fat tires and mag wheels, special steering wheel, mirrors and so on as the budget allowed from whatever source one wanted. In fact it might well be that an enthusiast would want to start at this point whether initial cost was an object or not.
2+2: This is the next step up in the fastback line and is much the same in basic form as the two-passenger except for the back seats and the fitting of B78x13 blackwall, crossply tires. It, too, can be had with almost any combination of options from the V-6 engine, auto transmission to pinstriping and the luxury interior. Since the back seats fold down, it has nearly as much room as the two-passenger version. It can, in short, be almost anything you want it to be and that the budget can stand. On this one, too, if you choose the options right at the beginning you can bring it up to Mach 1 caliber piecemeal from aftermarket suppliers or the Ford dealer.
Mach 1: This is the top of the fastback line and comes standard with a number of items that are optional on the others. Among these are the V-6 engine, BR70x13 steel-belted, wide-oval radial tires, dual remote-controlled mirrors and the paint-and-tape trim and identification similar to that on the big '73 Mach 1. Since this is the performance version, a virtual must option is, at minimum, the competition suspension. The CR70 tires and alloy wheels would add icing to the cake as would the limited slip differential. This last item should be ordered when the car is ordered but the wheels and tires can wait until the budget allows if necessary. The competition suspension is something the Mach 1 shouldn't be without and cannot be ordered as an add-on. It consists of higher rate springs in stiffer bushings than the base suspension, a rear sway (anti-roll) bar and three-position adjustable Gabriel shock absorbers, each step adding more rebound control. In their softest setting they give a feeling similar to that of the better European sedans, which is to say that all of the Mustangs could benefit from this particular option. Jounce damping is just right for a smooth, relatively soft ride and the rebound control eliminates all tendency toward high frequency spring action and consequent harshness. In the intermediate setting there is little more apparent stiffness but the control is such that it is ideal for fast, cross-country touring. Set on the full firm position there is a definitely firmer ride. One might think, since jounce control is unaffected, the ride would not stiffen but the rebound action is of such an order that the springs are pulled down to a partially compressed position, making them stiffer and giving firm but not harsh ride, similar to that of the '65-'66 Shelby GT-350 which to an enthusiast comes on as no bad thing. Cornering turns dead flat and handling is totally predictable. We tried the Mach 1 in both the soft and hard settings and found that the soft setting soaked up all the little bumps and ripples of a gravel road, giving a ride that would do credit to European imports in the $5000 and up category. The stiff setting, on the other hand was worth seconds on the ride and handling course because of the precision with which it could be put through the turns. The feeling was more than a little reminiscent of the '65 GT-350 except for the lack of the blast of power and a moderate amount of understeer. The last was deliberately engineered into the chassis due to the fact that a truly neutral handling car requires more than average experience on the part of the driver. To someone not used to it a neutral car can feel like it is in an oversteer condition when it isn't, creating a tendency on the part of the driver to make unwarranted corrections. In this form the Mach 1 ranks right in there with a number of the optioned European sports sedans, many of which we don't even see in this country. With the suspension-optioned Mach 1 we now have a sort of mini-Shelby GT-350 except for sheer power - and there are ways around that problem.
TWO-DOOR NOTCHBACK
We were talking to some of the Mustang project engineers at the Romeo proving ground when Karl Ludvigsen came in from the handling course in the notchback Mustang Grande (pronounce the "e"). "Hey," he said, "try this on - it's a whole nother Mustang!"
He was right. Teh notchback or two-door is no just a notched version of the fastback but almost another, and different, car. The difference is not easy to describe but it is probably best expressed as being similar to the difference between the original Mustang fastback and the plush versions of the original Cougar. They share the same chassis and most of the same interior appointments but they're different. Even in its standard version the two-door is somehow more civilized. Where all the fastbacks; even the bare-bones base model, impart a sense of tautness the notchback has a more conventional ambience. Both versions have a choice of fixed or fold-down rear seats, the latter giving the option of full-length luggage space but without the barn-like commodiousness of the fastback.
The Grande is the luxury version and for this one alone is reserved such touches as a choice of vinyl, Westminster cloth or crushed velour edged with vinyl for the seats, simulated burl woodgrain door and dash panels, heavier-than-standard pile carpeting and courtesy/warning lights in the bottoms of the doors. Other touches include a digital clock, carpeted (instead of painted) luggage compartment and a deluxe sound package that really works. The quiet is of an order that is unexpected in a small car. What it amounts to is honest luxury. In addition it can be ordered with most of the same options as the fastback, including the "competition" suspension which would give it the best of both worlds.
While we were able to drive all five of the configurations, our running was confined to the ride and handling portion of the proving ground which gave a repeatability for comparison and a good feel of what the cars were like on a two-lane country road but little else in the way of real-world driving, including any idea of interstate highway speeds. As mentioned the suspension-optioned Mach 1 proved solidly predictable in the manner of the early Shelby Mustangs. The others were competitive with the better imports in their price class an maybe a cut above that. All gave a feeling of security and an idea that it could continue all day on county and state roads without imparting fatigue and at a better than average pace. In the case of the heavily optioned Grande the silence wasn't the only notable part; it may have been psychological but it seemed to ride better than all but the soft-set Mach 1 - possibly it was the extra weight. Whatever the reason, anyone who liked the early Cougar would like the Grande. Each type had is own distinct personality and will doubtless find owners of similar temperament as did the various versions of the original Mustang.
Putting a point on the two types of Mustang and their differences, if one were to give a favored son a car for graduation it would be one of the fastbacks but if it were a favored daughter it would be the notchback.
Those vibrations can stop now. In our humble estimate, Mr. Iacocca's reputation is still safe.
|
|
