@TheEldweebo a LITTLE MORE refinement ? well, lets compromise and say "it could have been a world–class GT car.. you know, for an 80s Ford... i test drove this car a couple of times at my local for dealership, and the problem i had with it, was the Build Quality. since the mustang 2 (read: Pinto) was introduced, the "Bean Counters" do what they always do. they take what comes from the Design Department, then they cheapen up every aspect of the Design, to squeeze out every penny of profit.
the svo failed because nobody wanted a 4 cyl for motovation in a performance mustang. The consumers wanted a v8.Thats why ford scraped it and in turn beefed up the 5.0 in the late 80's. They did use the svo 2.3 turbo in the 87-88 tbird turbo coupe. My opinion is that back in the early- mid 80's chrysler was selling the shit out of there 2.2 turbo that they using in every mutated version of k car they had and ford wanted a piece of the pie too.
Love the hood, but yeah those lights kinda ruin it. I didn't know this was a 4 banger... they shoulda gone with a 6, GM did VERY well with a V6 Turbo, Ford shoulda tried one also.
Why didn't they just do that to the regular Mustang GT? And the way they made it look with the wheels and two head lights instead of 4 head lights just made it look ugly. It doesn't look sporty at all.
@ClassicTVMan81 I wouldn't say that the V8 is the "better loved". If you put both of them side by side right now, that SVO would get waaaaaaaaaaaay more props than the 5.0.
@ClassicTVMan81 Well the 302 V8 was a lot cheaper to build than a turbocharged and intercooled 4 cylinder engine. Also...it wasn't actually a 5.0, it was a 4.9 V8 (4942cc)
i know they were crap but i kinda like the 80's stangs. especially that 85 maybe 86 one it was a GT it had kind-of a body kit like a special edition my aunt's husband has one.
This has been flagged as spam show
the transmission on the 1979-1993 Ford Mustang
Transmission
4-speed manual
5-speed manual
3-speed automatic
4-speed automatic
Annihilator1111 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the engine on on the 1979-1993 Ford Mustang
Engine
2.3 L 86hp I4
2.3 L turbocharged I4
3.3 L I6
2.8 L V6
3.8 L Essex V6
4.2 L V8
4.9 L Windsor 157hp V8 (marketed as a "5.0" model)
Annihilator1111 2 months ago
The mustangs that are fap/shlick worthy
and the 2004s..lol
FOXBODIES FO' LIFE!
KillerToyota 2 months ago
With a little more refinement, it could have been a world–class GT car. Unfortunately, it fell short.
TheEldweebo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEldweebo a LITTLE MORE refinement ? well, lets compromise and say "it could have been a world–class GT car.. you know, for an 80s Ford... i test drove this car a couple of times at my local for dealership, and the problem i had with it, was the Build Quality. since the mustang 2 (read: Pinto) was introduced, the "Bean Counters" do what they always do. they take what comes from the Design Department, then they cheapen up every aspect of the Design, to squeeze out every penny of profit.
walkingeagle069 1 week ago
the svo failed because nobody wanted a 4 cyl for motovation in a performance mustang. The consumers wanted a v8.Thats why ford scraped it and in turn beefed up the 5.0 in the late 80's. They did use the svo 2.3 turbo in the 87-88 tbird turbo coupe. My opinion is that back in the early- mid 80's chrysler was selling the shit out of there 2.2 turbo that they using in every mutated version of k car they had and ford wanted a piece of the pie too.
1978mtb 4 months ago
Love the hood, but yeah those lights kinda ruin it. I didn't know this was a 4 banger... they shoulda gone with a 6, GM did VERY well with a V6 Turbo, Ford shoulda tried one also.
nightmathzombieethan 4 months ago
Why didn't they just do that to the regular Mustang GT? And the way they made it look with the wheels and two head lights instead of 4 head lights just made it look ugly. It doesn't look sporty at all.
jackslater230011 5 months ago
They the same men that made the headlights ugly as hell? lol
AdamAus85 6 months ago
15 years ahead of its time.
Hot80s 8 months ago
0-50??
manuntd2009 8 months ago 8
@manuntd2009 It's to judge the speed of the car after one shift rather than two. To get to 60mph many cars have to shift twice.
eskimo810 6 months ago
@manuntd2009 The national speed limit was 55MPH back then.
renegadex2 3 months ago
SVT
Heatherstang 10 months ago
the 1979-1993 Ford Mustang was assembled in
Dearborn, Michigan
San Jose, California
Caracas, Venezuela
Annihilator1111 10 months ago
lol "Special Vehicle Operations" glad they switched to SVT
tacomanfan344 11 months ago
special engine, faster, lighter...it's basically like the older version of SVT, of course it costs more.
MrTcandela08 1 year ago
Oddly this variant cost more money than the better-loved 5.0 V8 GT version.
ClassicTVMan81 1 year ago
@ClassicTVMan81 I wouldn't say that the V8 is the "better loved". If you put both of them side by side right now, that SVO would get waaaaaaaaaaaay more props than the 5.0.
Pookie2419 1 year ago
@ClassicTVMan81 the V8 was around 157-210 HP When u take into consideration the extra weight and driver skill the SVO was a good contender.
bigphat200 1 year ago 2
@ClassicTVMan81 Well the 302 V8 was a lot cheaper to build than a turbocharged and intercooled 4 cylinder engine. Also...it wasn't actually a 5.0, it was a 4.9 V8 (4942cc)
94XJ 11 months ago
@94XJ youre wrong...4949cc
ROBBY639 7 months ago
i know they were crap but i kinda like the 80's stangs. especially that 85 maybe 86 one it was a GT it had kind-of a body kit like a special edition my aunt's husband has one.
hazzardwantcookies 1 year ago
i wonder when for's svo team got replaced by the svt team
360DarkShadow 1 year ago
@360DarkShadow it was 1993 when svt replaced svo.
leoconvoy 1 year ago