The history of the fox body

[trbkrb]

If I remember correct, the Granada is a Fox Platform too.

Yes, the second generation Granada was Fox based (1980's models). IIRC, Ford actually sold both styles for one year. And like was mentioned, Ford REALLY got the use out of the Fox platform for over 25 years (including the SN95 cars). The Fairmont/Zephyr, LTD/Marquis 1980's midsize (the full size were renamed Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, while the LTD II was the 1977-1979 Torino redesign), Granada, Mustang/Capri, Tbird/Cougar, and also the Mark VII/Lincoln Continental were all Fox chassis based. Wikipedia even has an article on the Ford Fox platform!

 

[795.0pacecar]

Ah yes, I seemed to miss that when I read about that. I was too shocked to realize the mustangs were going to be replaced!!

And yes that would be a scary thought.... a mustang with no V8 .....

In 74 you could not get a V8 in a mustang.

 

[poneypower89]

This statement is %100 wrong. The mustang II was not a mistake. People may feel it was today because they think its ugly but ford sold more mustang IIs from 74-78 than they did areo nose mustangs from 87-93. From 74-78 ford sold 1,107,718 mustang IIs, from 87-93 ford sold 1,011,307, so ford sold 96,411 more mustang IIs than areo nost mustangs. Yeah mustang IIs were the mistake . Fact is the mustang II was the right car for the right time and without it there most likely wouldn't be a mustang today.

No sir, not entirely.

You are focusing on the wrong aspect of the original statement.

The meaning behind "Mistake" was the reputation the Mustang encountered after the entire Pinto Self Destruction design. (IE. Poor gas tank design leading to explosions/fires in a rear end collision). After people realized the Mustang II and the Pinto shared the same chassis the reputation of the mustang went down WITH the pinto. Even if it did not reflect sales it was still a bad thing to have hovering over ones *sports* car of the era.

Also, if one is to classify a success and mistake soley by the number of vehicles it sold would be a very closed minded observation (and most likely wrong.). Plenty of crap boxes sell really really well. Take the geo or older hyundias for instance. Would you want to drive on of these? Would consider these cars a great car? I wouldnt anyways. However, they sell fairly well because they reach a target audience that is looking for gas mileage and low price. IE. They are basically the same thing as the Mustang II was in the 70's gas crisis/economy era. They might sell well, but that does NOT mean they weren't a mistake.

Bottom line, Ford produced a car that killed a lot of people and that car was associated with the Mustang. This was the "mistake" i was alluding to. I never meant to imply the Mustang II was a mistake sales/business wise because obviously it was not.

Ford Fairmont was introduced one year before the mustang fox platform to give adequate time to inspect the performance/reputation of the chassis. At least, this was the speculation I was talking about earlier.

Cool? You get what Im saying now?

 

[I_AM_CANADIAN]

In 74 you could not get a V8 in a mustang.

I wouldn't buy a '74 Mustang if it had a BOSS 429 in it!

Actually ya I would, but I would part the damn thing before anyone knew I bought it.

 

[795.0pacecar]

No sir, not entirely.

You are focusing on the wrong aspect of the original statement.

The meaning behind "Mistake" was the reputation the Mustang encountered after the entire Pinto Self Destruction design. (IE. Poor gas tank design leading to explosions/fires in a rear end collision). After people realized the Mustang II and the Pinto shared the same chassis the reputation of the mustang went down WITH the pinto. Even if it did not reflect sales it was still a bad thing to have hovering over ones *sports* car of the era.

Also, if one is to classify a success and mistake soley by the number of vehicles it sold would be a very closed minded observation (and most likely wrong.). Plenty of crap boxes sell really really well. Take the geo or older hyundias for instance. Would you want to drive on of these? Would consider these cars a great car? I wouldnt anyways. However, they sell fairly well because they reach a target audience that is looking for gas mileage and low price. IE. They are basically the same thing as the Mustang II was in the 70's gas crisis/economy era. They might sell well, but that does NOT mean they weren't a mistake.

Bottom line, Ford produced a car that killed a lot of people and that car was associated with the Mustang. This was the "mistake" i was alluding to. I never meant to imply the Mustang II was a mistake sales/business wise because obviously it was not.

Ford Fairmont was introduced one year before the mustang fox platform to give adequate time to inspect the performance/reputation of the chassis. At least, this was the speculation I was talking about earlier.

Cool? You get what Im saying now?

I still think your wrong.

Only 27 people EVER died in pinto fires, soon after the design flaw was found ford started incorperating a rubber bladder in the gas tank to keep gas from spilling out in the event of a rear end collision. The mustang II was not a mistake, most people have no idea they were based on the same chassis as the pinto. The mustang II also had much less in common with the pinto than the original mustang had with the falcon, the pinto didn't have a rear collision tank fire problem either. The only thing that makes people think the mustang II a mistake is that by todays standards it is an ugly car to most people, but back in the mid-late 70s it was a car that was good on gas while still being some what sporty. The mustang II kept the mustang alive through the doledrums of the mid-late 70s, and it was in no way a mistake.

 

[stangzroastrice]

I still think your wrong.

Only 27 people EVER died in pinto fires, soon after the design flaw was found ford started incorperating a rubber bladder in the gas tank to keep gas from spilling out in the event of a rear end collision. The mustang II was not a mistake, most people have no idea they were based on the same chassis as the pinto. The mustang II also had much less in common with the pinto than the original mustang had with the falcon, the pinto didn't have a rear collision tank fire problem either. The only thing that makes people think the mustang II a mistake is that by todays standards it is an ugly car to most people, but back in the mid-late 70s it was a car that was good on gas while still being some what sporty. The mustang II kept the mustang alive through the doledrums of the mid-late 70s, and it was in no way a mistake.

true that, long live the mustang...

 

[afast93stang]

From: Mustang The Original Muscle Car

Design and development began in the summer of 1973 on a shorter wheelbase - 100 inches - to respond first to the need for the Pinto/Cortina/Taunus. Through the next year, work advanced the Fox/Pinto platform and it was begun on a Fox/Fairmont sedan. The problem was Sperlich's theoretial world car and safety standards differed from country to country and no nation was willing to yield its regulations to another's. Hugely different production techniques between European and US factories in the size of their body panels, in spot welding philosophy, as well as in proprietary characteristis of their outside vendors' component represented the final insurmountable hurdle to be the same-car-everywhere project at the time. But the platform on which to base the Pinto/Mustang sedan was looking more and more viable. By spring of 1975 North American Automotive Operations had taken over the Fox platform from Sperlich's Product Planning and Research dept.

 

[Boss 351]

"Taunus" For real? hahaha tuna and anus comes to mind for some reason

 

[mustangphil]

'91 was the worst selling year for the Mustang ever.