A Big "What If?"

[rpmcarter]

Okay!! My apologies for not making myself clear. My intent wasn't to drag up all the political drama, nor the economic woes from the 1970s. My intent was: if Ford had kept the '71 to '73 body style until 1980 or '81, what would likely have appeared to compete with the GM "F" bodies? Pontiac had the 455SD; an amazing engine with nice manners and killer performance. When the 455 engine was retired, the Pontiac engineers stepped up with the W72 400. Performance increased every year until 1979. Pontiac also worked wonders with suspension and brakes. Over at Chevrolet, when the Z28 was brought back in mid '77, it had a much improved suspension, and good 4 speed teamed with a 3.73 rear axle ratio, then in 1980, cold air induction made a comeback. The 350 engine in the Z28 was only the LM1, not the L82 option from the Corvette, not even the L48 standard Corvette engine.

How do you think Ford would have responded, or even better, led? Example; Granada/Monarch/Versailles could be had with rear disc brakes, before the option was available on a GM car. Don't see why the Mustang couldn't have had them in 1975. Ford had better catalytic convertors than GM, (And eventually in 1986 came out with the first true dual exhaust system equipped with convertors. This may only have been possible due to the use of EFI, but you get the picture).

How would the Mustang suspension have evolved to compete with the Trans Am and Z28? Perhaps an Export brace for our cars may have been developed. The rear steer set-up would have been a limiting factor, yes, but who says they couldn't change that?

How do you think engine options would have played out? Hopefully not a 351W unless the GT40 heads were brought forward 15 years. (Not as much of a stretch as you may think.) The 335 series engines would actually run cleaner with their flat poly-angle valve combustion chamber than a wedge engine. The low block 351 was discontinued after 1974 in an effort to consolidate. When Ford abandoned the 400cid class, the 351M naturally went with it. However, the low deck 351 continued in production in Australia until 1982. Could Ford have made a 460 that would have been competitive with Pontiac's 455SD? How would Jack Rousch have faired compared to Herb Adams?

I'm sorry did I BREAK your concentration????? there are no what "IF's" here. Ford clearly fell for the political movement!!!! GM and Ponitac by your own admission produced low powered conservative performance autos. Some would say with good styling with great suspension and the allure of power as in the SD455 or in later years the 79 4.5 liter Trans Am. But for the record I had one of the Olds and one of the Pontiacs and for the record they were powerful in badge name ONLY!!!! ....they were WEAK. The only what if i can concede is WHAT IF Ford didnt hand us the POS Mustang II ( sorry if some of you guys consider that a MUSTANG) what would it look like other than that roller skate piece of crap? That said ....the answer to me is they wouldnt have had to invest 20-30 year reviving the Mustang against the likea of a fairly decent ascension of the Camaro and Ponitac Firebird and cousins that out performed and handled better than the FORD product hands down. Therefore forcing FORD to rely strictly on the Ford truck to salvage their reputation through a marketable product that was unnoticed by the liberals because we all know we need trucks to haul and build things and even the liberals know

'THEY NEED STUFF BUILT" and it requires a truck so they didnt attack it.

So as we seek what if.... it would be proper to note that Jack Rouch had to partner with a German firm to continue his legacy or interest in auto performance for years knowing that FORD let him down ...which led to his return later to the race scene of American Performance after the "POLITICS" . Let's concede that the Chevrolet today...40 years later carries MORE VALUE than our beloved Mustangs nearly two to one, and undisputed fact. Most of us are simply hold outs to a design and a power of yesteryear that frankly was 3 rd to Chrysler and Chevrolet at its best...yet we still love them for style mostly. For me .... "WE" are the what if's!!! Recreation and improvement of a classic we loved improving it one horse power at at time......

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Sorry, but I disagree with most of that assesment.

First of all "GM and Pontiac" are not a "couple of manufacturers", they are the same.

The Mustang II certainly was not a great car, but it was on par with other American cars sold during the time at that price point. Small cars in general were just pretty dismal from any American msnufacturer back then.

I sgree that the F-bodies were generally always more sophisticated and better performers than the Mustang for most years. That is not because Ford could'nt do it or GM made better cars or anything like that.

It was simple economics: Ford has ALWAYS tried to keep the price point for the Mustang where it will encourage greater sales across the board. It has worked, for the Mustang is the ONLY ONE to have had a continuous production run from then until now.

The F-bodies became so good at being a performance car during the nineties thst they encroached on Corvette performance. Thier price point moved up to where anyone considering a Zor a T/A could step into a Vette for only a few dollars more.

The F bodies left thier market, Mustang stayed there and continued to sell.

The F-bodies were cancelled due to poor sales, nothing else. The obsession and resurgance with power and performance is what made it viable to bring them back, along with the new Challenger ( which is basically just a shortened, 2 door 300/ Chatger).

Ford certainly knows how to build performance cars- the current GT 500 is proof. And Ford did not need to turn to Roush for expertise becahse they didnt know how: Jack Roush WAS a Ford performance engineer well before he struck out on his own, just as Lingenfelter was a GM engineer.

The Mustang has always tried to keep itself squarely in its demographic target on price, and that is why they sell so many "regular" non performance models. GM does not sell nearly as high a percentage of entry-level Camaros.

 

[rpmcarter]

Well certainly Kit... didnt think I needed to write a book on the fact Jack WAS a performance engineer...with his physics degree I would sure hope so. The pure nature of the thread is subjective as the gentleman stated, so really anything we post is correct. Of course with due respect to facts used. So you are not required to nor expected to agree...its my opinion. Frankly the photo below is the best we could have come up with without designing our own prints and submitting to the thread.

This is MY what if to answer the gentlemans point. I would imagine the 351 Windsor due to its ability to make an easy and dependable 500 hp. With the line up of decent quality Ford trucks and the 360 *a successful plant through 76, with the larger crank could have been offered as a performance off the shelf option giving Ford the ability to show their love for us and maintaining a reasonable price point.

That good ole effort to maintain a cheap price point ruined any chance to save the Mustang as we knew it and they are STILL THIRD in performance even beat out by KIA in the top 10 fastest cars under 30,000.00 oh and where is Ford dong their best to maintain a price point for us hold outs??? 63000.00 for a performance car!!!

tell me would THIS have put Chebbie in the back seat???

 

[Kit Sullivan]

I didn't intend my post to come across as harshly ss it may have...sorry about that. Of course this all just supposition, so no opinion is correct above all others, mine included.

I was only referencing the attitude that many GM,-guys and other non-Mustangers have that FORD couldn't compete with GM when it came to pony-csr performance.

The fact that the F-twins typically outperformed most iterations of Mustang is not from a lack of engineering skill, expertise of knowledge on Ford's part...as lots of anti-Ford guys love to bandy about...but simply a market-driven choice to keep the product at a specific price point.

Years and years ago, the difference between GM's and Ford's marketing strategies were taught in beginning business classes.

Supposedly, GM would design a vehicle to fit a certain market, and price accordingly.

Ford, on the other hand would indentify a pfice point within a specific segment of the market, and then design a car to that price.

I never really saw the distinction there, but that was taught for years.

 

[rpmcarter]

No worries Kit.... we're all friends here and different ideas on our big body cars. For me, our cars that people like to call BIG are the last of the awesome Mustang history. After that.... pretty much the end for some of us.

To your point on the business class.... I personally didnt see academia leaders as "car people" however the class did point out the competitive nature of the former leaders of the industry. Today that class would point out they were either lacking foresight or victims of world economics evolving and the governments role in pandering to the Asian marketplace and the lack of balance.

 

[74proii]

There's no way the body style would have survived more than a few more years more even if, and that's a big if the world hadn't changed the way it did. Sure it is the longest hood/ shortest deck and to most the meanest looking mustang produced. That being said we all how it is a hulking beast. Sure suspension changes would it make it handle better, but the lack of real power after 73 would have made it a serious dog. In reading this thread it seems that most people either don't know, or clearly had forgotten that performance was dead until 1982 period! Ford had the world firmly in it's hand and just let it go away. Bending to the insurance industry, and general blasé of the populous. Muscle cars were dead, people quickly forgot about that until Ford revived that feeling in Americans in 82, but that didn't really take hold until 20 years later across the board. I laugh when I pass car lots with all the rice cars and things like a Chevy Malibu with there hoods up. What are you looking at? A great big piece of plastic, a turbo? Funny that that car dealer trick to sell a car survived, and the reason behind almost didn't. The biggest thing about being a "Ford Guy" is the lack of support, not only from the company, but the owners. We could really take a play from the Aussie's on that front. You have to know what you are doing with a Ford, tons of interchange etc. , but you need to know how things work. One of the things I love about Ford, the way and quality of how it is designed. sure Chevy has always posted higher horsepower numbers, but in reality it was a false lead. Ford downplayed that part, rather annoyingly at times. People readily jump on that Chevy bandwagon. Driven mostly by the industry. Chevy is cheaper to build because lack of ingenuity across the board. Their basic premise between a Caprice and a Corvette was slap a better cam, intake, and headers. Oh can we get a 4 barrel and air shocks with that! But because of that 20 cars 5 brand mentality fuelled the love of them over us. I see ASE mechanics trying to treat everything like a Chevy everyday. Whatever isn't they shun. Why not it's their bread and butter of grocery getters. As to mII's being "turds" and foxes being "ugly" To each their own. Good thing we are not basing a success on production numbers. That point speaks to itself. I would suppose that those individuals never owned a nice example of either that wasn't beat to death before they got it. Yeah fought that battle most of my life. Horsepower aside my 74 coupe handled better than any other mustang I ever owned until I got my 93. Sure smaller and way lighter, but I used to make many a v8 guy embarrassed by losing to my 2.3 light to light. They share many design elements of the originals, 71-73's do not. After all Mustangs became performance cars as an after thought, in spite of what we may chose to believe. A look at the last couple of decades easily proves that. Not for me, but there is something said to getting better than 9 mpg! No where near as much fun though