| |
A HOTTER MUSTANG II
The Mustang continues as the perennial paradox at Dearborn
|
Every time one team of Ford designers burns the midnight oil to create a compact two-door with a small engine, another team steals the drawings before the ink is dry and begins modifying for more power and more luxury.
That's the way we imagine the workings at Dearborn as a result of driving the Mustang II Mach 1. The Mustang II has been the compact answer for a bigger personal sedan with economy of operation, one step up from the small Pinto. Until this year the engines were the four-cylinder ohc (140 cid) and the ohc V-6 (same as Capri). Now the muscle boys step in and drop a 302 V-8 under the hood . . . and the result is a wilder Mustang II, so here we go again.
This V-8 version has been built before, in Mexico, but not allowed in the U.S. due to emissions. Now the certifications have been completed, and the 'car will probably be one of the hottest sellers for Ford. The four-cylinder engine and V-6 will continue to be offered (the four is standard) for 1975, but we doubt that much production time will be devoted to the four.
For those who prefer the smaller engines, however, there are some additional benefits not enjoyed in the pre-'75 Mustang II's. To accommodate the heavier V-8 engine there were several modifications made to the overall design and component structure of the car. Most of these were to handle the additional weight of the V-8 engine. They found it necessary to beef up the suspension components for the added 200+ pounds and provide for better cooling. As a result, the other Mustangs with the smaller engines received the same upgrading, which will mean slightly better handling and certainly more component reliability over a long period of time.
The one drawback, which may be changed next year, is that the V-8 comes with only the three-speed automatic instead of four-on-the-floor. The four-speed transmission is available as a standard item with the four and V-6 engines, but there were design problems in the basic structure of the car which eliminated the possibility of the same transmission on the V-8.
Another valuable option available on all Mustang II cars is the Rally or Competition suspension, which was on our Mach I car at Dearborn and made a night-to-day change in the cornering and handling of the car.
While the V-8 installation obviously improved performance in straight line acceleration, the added weight up front created a front-heavy 60 percent of weight distribution, leaving 40 percent to the rear.
To compensate for this and to improve reliability, spring rates were increased and shocks were revalved. Additionally, heavier gauge materials were used in spindles, struts, and lower control arms. All this is standard on the Mustang II regardless of the engine installation, but the competition package offers even more refinement by providing higher spring ratings, adjustable shocks and heavy sway bars. The result was an impressive 5 mph faster speed around a 150-foot skid pad circle. It also creates more precise high speed cornering, enabling the driver to enter a turn and maintain the radius without constant correction for understeer or oversteer. The results are not neutral, because the front end still drifts out slightly before the rear in a tight turn circle, but the throttle can be used to maintain a bit of control with the rear wheels. This is not possible in the four-cylinder due to lack of power, but without driving the setup on the four-cylinder, we'd bet that the weight difference wouldn't create the front-drift problem. As we careened around the proving ground to compare the V-8 performance in the Ghia model and the Mach I with the suspension package, we found cornering speeds from 8 to 10 miles per hour faster in the Mach 1, and a smoother control even in extreme drifts.
In one high-speed sweeping turn we repeatedly applied the brakes while bordering on a washout speed and found the Mach I Competition suspension improved handling so well that it was difficult to produce a broadslide.
The size of the Mustang II is excellent for accommodating the added power of the V-8. The 96.2 inch wheelbase combines very favorably with the wide 55.6 inch tread to create a stable base for power and driveability. If the engine could be moved rearward for a better weight distribution it would be more ideal, but as it happened the radiator had to be moved forward three inches and the hood was raised three inches. Ford has avoided touting the Mustang II as a performance car, though the potential is certainly there, and will most likely not consider sacrificing passenger room for better engine placement.
Every Mustang II V-8 comes with power steering and power brakes as standard equipment, and they are greatly appreciated because the car's automatic transmission demands more of the brakes and the PS reduces one turn from lock to lock position. The front disc and rear drum brakes measure 9.3 and 9.0 inches respectively, which we feel is a bit small for a V-8 engined car bordering on 3000 pound curb weight. Reliability would be the main criteria for judgment, however, and Ford has upgraded the pads and linings to provide more even wear and less fade.
Those who have owned older versions of the Ford 302 V-8 automobiles may not be too impressed with the performance of the engine in the Mustang II. The engine has been tuned to meet emission standards and has naturally suffered the loss in horsepower, as all other '75 car engines have. It does make a big difference in the Mustang II, though the V-6 with the four-speed offers adequate power.
Our Mach I test car was compared to the V-6 engined version (also in the Mach I) and really excelled in the performance category, quite naturally. The competition suspension is a big improvement over the stock components on either car, though it made the biggest improvement on the V-8. The Mach 1 designation comes in only the V-6 and V-8, and consists of interior trim packages and exterior paint jobs to separate the car from the Ghia, the straight two-door, and the three-door hatchback version. The Mach I is nicely done, however, and offers a sporty version of the Mustang II that matches the new V-8 powerplant. A tachometer mounts next to the speedometer for good readout, though with the automatic as the only transmission available some of the more important functions of the tach are lost. It will, however, keep the driver from shifting into a lower range at too great a speed if he's alert, but the speedometer could be used to the same advantage. When upshifting, or trying to gain more performance from the V-8, the tach registers 4100 rpm at the shift point, quite low for the engine potential but compatible with the tuning requirements for emissions. There is no appreciable gain in performance by manually shifting up through the ranges, even though higher rpm can be attained. Once 4000 rpm is reached it's a downhill readout on the horsepower chart.
In addition to braking on the corners while on the test track, we made several panic stops from 60 mph and found the Mach I surprisingly quick in spite of the added V-8 weight. The stops were straight even though we locked up the front wheels for the last few feet. On the stock suspension versions the front end would probably have dipped far more noticeably, but our car had the competition suspension so more weight stayed on the rear tires and allowed them to maintain their adhesion longer. The stopping distance would have been improved if the manual transmission were to be used, allowing a speed of 60 mph at the top end of second gear.
By way of comparison, the V-8 Mustang II beats the V-6 version from 0-60 mph by roughly 4.0 seconds, and the four-cylinder version lags behind by another 2.5 seconds. This leads us to wonder if there is much future for the little four-banger next year. We add this because the Mustang buyers have usually been a performance oriented crowd, as evidenced by Ford's decision on the V-8 availability this year, and the trend would seem to follow through for the converts who have been buying the Mustang II. Even without the four-speed transmission we would like to see on the console, the automatic provides versatility and a good degree of economy. The first shift comes in at 4300 (38 mph), slightly higher than the 4100 second shift (62 mph) under hard acceleration, but normal driving would allow the 302 engine to deliver approximately 14-16 miles per gallon. This is a calculated estimate only because mileage was not included as a part of our test at the Dearborn track.
In anticipation of the mileage loss by the installation of the V-8, Ford offered an auxiliary fuel tank which mounts in the rear of the car as a standard item. It holds an additional 3.5 gallons and combines with the regular tank to provide a 16.5 gallon total.
Both the Ghia and the Mach I are attractive cars, and both can provide the V-8 power, but our choice was the Mach I for its sporty appearance and the hatchback door. Our decision was probably influenced greatly by the competition suspension package, however, and we'd like to suggest that the slightly harder ride from this package is well worth the money when the wide safety margin and ease of handling are considered.
Because the V-8 will no doubt be driven by people with slightly heavier throttle habits; we were pleased to see the secondary instruments include a temperature gauge instead of a warning light. The instruments are neatly in front of the driver, with the speedometer and large tach directly in front of the wheel, and the fuel, alternator, temperature dials slightly to the right for quick scanning.
The automatic shift lever is floor mounted on the tunnel and has a T-handle with push-button release for downshifting and reverse. There is certainly an additional kick in the pants with the V-8, but the shift points in the automatic soften the blow by keeping the rpm low enough for a smooth transition from one ratio to another. Actually the second range could be used for most driving without taxing the engine a bit.
Without the suspension modification, but with the V-8 engine, the Mustang II rides quietly and would have to be driven hard to get out of shape in spite of the heavy front end. What it lacks in superior handling is made up by the power beneath the throttle, which can be used to corner smoother, pass another car faster, and creates a lower wear factor in the engine itself.
Now that the gasoline scare has quieted down to a low grumbling concerning the higher prices, automobile performance factors will come back into play among car buyers' requirements. It will never again be the horsepower race we saw in the fifties and sixties, but will be limited to coupling smaller engines with better drive trains and watching the weight of the cars. Within this limitation it's not hard to reason that, in a car like the Mustang II, the customer will want the biggest engine available.
After having driven the 302 V-8 version and compared overall performance, ride, and handling, it's hard to see much market for the four-cylinder car, and even the V-6 version will probably find a declining interest once the V-8's are out on the street and word gets around.
|
|
