Road & Track Iconic Cars: Mustang

MEET THE MUSTANG

Ford produces a car for the enthusiast who may be a family man, but likes his transportation car to be more sporting

BY GENE BOOTH

Comparison of size and shape—which shows considerable similarity–between the Mustang and the 1957 Thunderbird.

To the casual observer, it is difficult to understand why the American automobile industry seems unwilling or unable to produce sports cars. The Corvette Sting Ray is generally recognized as the sole domestic sports car, although Corvair Monzas have been regarded (by their owners at least) as acceptable substitutes. The development of Ford Motor Company’s new sports car, the Mustang, which will debut in showrooms within the week and in competition at the next available date, provides some of the explanation.

For the Mustang is definitely a sports car, on par in most respects with such undisputed types as the MG-B, Triumph TR-4, or Sunbeam Alpine. It also is more than a sports car by virtue of a more elaborate design concept: The Mustang buyer tailors his car to his special requirements from a lengthy option list. It can be made into a luxurious Baby Thunderbird; it can be ordered ready to race; it can be a comfortable gran turismo car; it can be tailormade for suburban housewives; and it is easily set up for the dirty T-shirt crowd at the drags.

Indeed, three somewhat diverging forces were at play on the Mustang during its development. All three, in the final outcome, succeed in coming across because of the extended availability of factory-installed options. Those concepts were for a stylish but economical transportation-type car; for a luxurious personal car with all the latest appointment amenities; and for an all-out sports racer barely tame enough for street use.

Development of such an automobile must go back a decade to the original 2-seat Thunderbird of 1955–57. Though never intended to be (nor was it called) a sports car, the early ’Bird did catch the germ of sporting flair and found many among the sports car set susceptible to its spell. But it didn’t sell well enough (53,166 cars in three years—1955–57) and for 1958 was enlarged to 4-passenger configuration, upgraded to luxury status, and effectively divested of its sportive heritage.

Letters from owners of the 2-seaters, however, began streaming steadily into FoMoCo executive offices calling for the return of the original ’Bird. Maneuverability and size seemed to be the main qualities the devotees missed.

Soon after the changeover, the imported car invasion began to take on significant proportions in this country. Ford countered with the Falcon, as its market research experts went to work. (Edsel experience notwithstanding, Ford places perhaps the greatest confidence in market research of all the domestic automakers.) The researchers plumbed the psyches of representative imported sports and economy car buyers to determine what they liked and discovered the birth of the bucket seat explosion, as Marketing Director Chase Morsey Jr. phrased it. Chevrolet stumbled onto this discovery with the introduction of the Monza at the 1960 Chicago Auto Show, and the subsequent sales curve of this car confirmed the Ford findings.

As regular R&T readers were well aware, the experts found these traits most desired by the import buyers: bucket seats, a floor-mounted gear shift mechanism that really worked, maneuverability, and lack of excess bulk. And, most surprising in view of the letter-writing campaign for a return of the 2-seater, there was an overwhelming demand for a full four-place configuration with some usable trunk space.

By 1961, as the Mustang project began to take definite form, the advanced styling studio had underway five experimental cars designed, according to Styling Director Gene Bordinat, to keep abreast of any changing market trends. In addition to what became the Mustang (which was being called Cougar at that time) there were the Allegro and the Cobra-based Cougar II (R&T, February 1964). The latter and the earlier rear-engined Mustang I had excited a great deal of interest among the youth (and young-minded) market, but Ford was not convinced a 2-seater would sell in view of the research results. Their data, Morsey later said, ties together into a package that literally leads directly to the Mustang. The comparison of this package with the 2-seat 1957 Thunderbird is shown in the following chart:

Styling had that package ready, and with the market research results as a lever, got a top level authorization to produce it. Then, and only then, were the engineers shown the car they would have to build. We demanded—and received—engineering flexibility and inventiveness, Bordinat later said. He meant his stylists wouldn’t give an inch.

Understandably miffed by such an unorthodox situation (Styling and Engineering normally work together in developing a new model for management presentation), engineers tackled their task with a vengeance. The roll-under of the lower sheet metal was too extreme, the hood line too low, the clearance between bumper and body metal was too limited, but Engineering had no choice but to make it work. They found that they could overcome the roll-under problems, could lower the radiator filler neck and air cleaner, could ignore bumper clearance. Then they injected their ideas.

The most significant engineering development for the Mustang is the platform frame. This evolved from a distillation of experience with unitized Thunderbirds and Fairlanes, just as suspension components were drawn from Falcon/Comet/Fairlane experience. The frame is all welded, with front and rear side rails joining wide-set rocker rails (all of box section construction) and tied together with the floor pan stamping. The drive shaft tunnel adds backbone rigidity and five crossmembers are additionally welded in for a ladder-type configuration. Convertible frames use integral torque boxes at the front side rail junctures and an additional strap of steel inside the rocker rails to gain back structural strength lost without the roof. At the front, deep side panels are welded to the side rails, forming a box around the engine compartment.

Present rear suspension is almost standard Falcon, but a fully independent rear suspension will be available.

Body panels are welded to this platform, forming a unitized structure in effect if not in concept. The body is virtually unchanged from the original clay mock-up and the interim Mustang II show car unveiled at Watkins Glen last year. The long hood line, short rear deck and close-coupled passenger compartment recall the Continental Mark II of the mid-’50s, reflecting also that car’s rear fender kickup but imparting greater litheness by the roll-under which so unnerved the engineers. Curved side glass is used to increase interior room, and production Mustangs have a less raked windshield angle than the show cars. The removable hardtop, which the show car and the 2-seat Thunderbird featured, is unavailable.

The platform frame, while unique only to American mass-produced automobiles, is the key to design objectives of light weight and reduced cost. (It might also be added that it is a tempting basis for all manner of special bodied cars.) It also goes a long way toward an engineering goal to keep it simple. And just as it represents refinement rather than revolution, so too does the suspension under the car. Coil springs with concentric shock absorbers mount atop the upper control arm in front while 3-leaf semi-elliptic springs with angle-mounted shock absorbers are used at the rear. All are rubber bushed to reduce harshness, and many detail differences are evident from Falcon/Fairlane practice.

The basic car is powered by the Falcon 170-cu-in. 6 cyl engine developing 101 bhp at 4400 rpm. With the standard 3-speed manual transmission, it has a curb weight of 2561 lb in hardtop form, 2740 lb as a convertible (the only two body styles available). For the first time, Ford uses its 3-speed Cruise-O-Matic transmission as an option for this engine, increasing curb weight by 51 lb. So fitted out, the car outclasses everything in its price range as transportation.

Standard equipment for the basic car has thin-shell bucket seats in front, a bench-type seat with padding for two in the rear. Shift levers, either for automatic or manual, are all tunnel-mounted. A deeply-hooded instrument panel is fully padded and is, along with the wall to wall nylon carpets, color-keyed to the all-vinyl interior trim. From this point on, the buyer can add enough options to approach the Thunderbird in luxury.

There are power assists for the brakes, steering, and convertible top. There are push-button radio, air conditioning, 2-speed wipers, and tinted glass options. Extra equipment can include a floor console, retractable seat belts, vinyl roof covering for hardtops, rocker panel moldings, wire wheel covers, and—to replace a phony scoop on the side sculpturing—a thin pin-stripe to accent the styling.

More important to the enthusiast, however, are the performance options which permit the sports car tailoring. These begin with the lightweight thinwall V-8 engines, the Falcon Sprint/Fairlane 260-cu-in. unit developing 164 bhp at 4400 rpm or the 289-cu-in. Fairlane/Comet Caliente powerplant of 210 bhp at 4400 rpm. The former adds 269 lb and the latter 293 lb over the basic 6-cyl car.

Then there are transmissions—Ford’s new all-synchromesh 3-speed manual with ratios of 2.79:1 low and 1.70:1 second; the English Ford-derived 4-speed with ratios of 3.16 low, 2.21 second and 1.41:1 third (for the Six); and the Warner Gear T-10 design 4-speed (for V-8s) with ratios of 2.78 low, 1.93 second and 1.36:1 third; or the torque-converter 3-speed automatic with a 2.46:1 low and a 2.05:1 ratio at stall. The 4-speed adds 45 and 20 lb to Six and V-8, respectively, while the automatic increases curb weight 51 lb for Six, 17 lb for V-8. Rear axle ratios are 3.20:1 for hardtop Sixes, 3.50:1 for convertible Sixes, and 3.00:1 for V-8s. Limited slip differentials are an optional extra.

Front suspension, too, is similar to that of Falcon, but has detail differences. Heavy-duty handling kits are optional.

The special handling package is more interesting. This option includes heavy duty shock absorbers, front spring rates increased to 101 lb/in from 89, rear rates at 130 instead of 101, an anti-roll bar of 0.84-in. diameter instead of the normal 0.69 in, and a faster steering ratio of 22:1 overall (with or without power assist) rather than the standard 27:1. However, Ford goes one step further: Optional wheels and tires can replace the standard 6:50-13s as part of the handling option. Buyers can choose 14 × 5-in rims, mounting 6.50-14 tires, or 15 × 5.5-in wheels, with 5.50/5.90-15 Firestone Super Sports.

For customers who can wait a few months, there will be even more. Disc brakes are to be offered (reportedly Kelsey-Hayes design and probably at regular fall introduction time) to replace the somewhat marginal brakes borrowed from the Fairlane. Present drums (9-in dia on Sixes, 10-in on V-8s) have 212 sq in. swept area for the Six, 251.3 sq in. for V-8, and represent (with steering quickness) the major area where Mustang still cannot match the European sports car.

Also in the offing is FoMoCo’s High Performance 289 engine, driving through the new Ford-designed 4-speed transmission and a choice of 3.89 or 4:11:1 final drive. This engine has a single Holley 4-bbl carburetor with high rise manifolding, solid valve lifters, 10.5:1 compression ratio, and dual exhausts with headers—resulting in 271 bhp at 6000 rpm and 312 lb-ft of torque at 3400. This engine, with 0.95 horsepower per cubic inch, is the same as used by the Comets for their 100,000 miles at 100 mph assault at Daytona Beach last fall. The transmission, with ratios of 2.32 low, 1.69 second, and 1.29:1 third, is easily recognized by the driver in that reverse is located to the left and down.

There will be 100 or so buyers who will be able to get an independent rear suspension on their cars instead of the leaf-spring Hotchkiss layout of the production version. This IRS car, three of which will be campaigned by Carroll Shelby under Ford colors this season, adapts the Lola GT geometry to the Mustang although components will be fabricated by Ford. The IRS design also includes changes in the front suspension, raising its roll center from 1.55 in above ground level as it lowers the rear roll center below the standard 9.3 in. Unfortunately, it would seem the Mustangs will have to run as modified in SCCA events this year because the car will not be classified by that body until December. Nonetheless, Ford Competition Manager Frank Zimmerman expects to see the Mustangs come in second to Cobras and ahead of Sting Rays.

The overall concept, incorporating the wrap-up of the state of the art of Ford’s Total Performance, leads General Manager Lee Iacocca to equate the Mustang with the Model A and Model T as historic landmarks in the company’s development. This is one reason for the curious late spring introduction and 1965 model designation, as well as for the identity as a fifth separate line for the company. The time required to spot the trend, identify the market, design the package, test the concept, engineer the car, and begin production seems well spent.

Rally Pac, which mounts to steering column, consists of 6000-rpm electric tachometer and 24-hour clock.

Front seats of both hardtop and convertible are comfortable. Rear-seat accommodations were surprisingly good, as well.

Mustang proportions (long hood, short deck) are far more