| |
New from Ford:
Mustang II V-8
The larger engine improves Ford's ponycar by John Dinkel
|
Rarely can an automobile company take a car designed for a 4- or 6-cyl engine, stuff in a heavier, thirstier V-8 and have us liking it, much less praising, the results. But that's exactly what happened with the 302-equipped 1975 Mustang II prototype the Engineering Editor recently had a chance to drive at Ford's Dearborn proving grounds. Those close to the automotive scene will probably find such a move somewhat anticlimactic: Mustang IIs with the 302 V-8 have been available all during 1974 in Mexico. There it was a question of necessity, not need. Ford builds a 302 V-8 in Mexico but no a 4-cyl or a V-6. Because of certain percentage of each car must be local content, this is, contain parts made in Mexico, using the V-8 was a prerequisite for building cars. Emissions regulations are less restrictive south of the border so lack of cooling (one of the primary reasons a V-8 wasn't available in U.S. Mustang IIs in 1974) is less of a problem. A necessary compromise, however, is that air conditioning can't be ordered in Mexican 302s - an untenable situation to comfort-conscious North Americans.
Fitting the 302 to U.S. Mustangs wasn't just a case of yanking out the 4-cyl or the V-6 and stuffing in the V-8. Several modifications - some major and some of the more subtle nature - were required. Structural changes include moving the radiator yoke forward, strengthening the side rails on the second crossmember and bringing the grill flush for better cooling as well as providing space for the longer V-8. The heavier V-8 (it's 213 lb heavier that the 2.8-liter V-6) also required an upgrade in suspension components: spindles, lower control arms and compression struts are all of heavier gauge material. To facilitate assembly and for common use of parts all 1975 Mustang IIs incorporate these changes. Larger tires are needed with the V-8, too: 195/70-13 radials on 5 1/2 in. steel rims are standard with 6-in. aluminum wheels optional as of 1974.
To compensate for the additional engine weight, spring rates have been increased front and rear. The 302 gets 375lb/in. coil springs up front compared to 350 lb/in. for the 1974 2.8-liter Mach I with air conditioning. Rear leaf springs are rated at 106 lb/in., an increase of 5 lb/in. over last year. With either the competition or rally suspension options (an option the enthusiast should definitely order), 124 lb/in. rear springs and a heavier front anti-roll bar plus rear bar are standard. Brakes are the same size as in 1974 but the linings are of harder material for less fade and improved stopping distances. Because of the additional front-end weight, power brakes and steering are standard.
Those expect the 302 Mustang II to usher in a new era of mini-muscle cars should head back to their 396 Chevelles and 383 Roadrunners post haste. The Mustang's engine is in a low state of tune and stresses smooth, quiet acceleration rather than brute horsepower. But it's no slug in a straight line. We clicked off a few 0-60 mph times in the 10.5-sec region; that's about 3 sec faster than the Mach I we tested last January and about equal to our 1974 long-term v_6 Capri, a car the Mustang outweighs by a hefty 750 lb. Those excess pounds are the primary reason why the V-6 feels so weak in the Mustang compared to the snappy response in the Capri.
California residents once again bear the brunt of more restrictive emission standards. All California Mustang II 302s will be fitted with dual catalysts; the rest of the country escapes these devices entirely. With the converter, more spark advance can be dialed into the engine - an aid to drivability, fuel economy and cooling - but all 302s, whether equipped with catalysts or no, will have exhaust-gas recirculation though in differing amounts. In addition, all 1975 Ford engines, not just 302s, will have air pumps and pointless ignitions.
Ford expects fuel economy of the V-8 package to average around 15 mpg, relatively poor compared to the 20-22 mpg we average with out Capri but only 1.5 mpg lower than the sluggish 1974 Mach I we tested. To improve the 302's range, a 3.5-gal. auxiliary fuel tank is fitted in the left-rear quarter panel. This brings the total capacity to 16.5 gal. for a cruising range of around 250 miles with 1.0 gal. in reserve.
Real enthusiasts will be disappointed to learn that a 4-speed transmission - standard in all other Mustangs including Mexican 302s - isn't available with the U.S. V-8. According to Ford, the current 4-speed won't fit because of interference in the tunnel area and for economic reasons Ford elected not to modify the car to make one fit. This isn't a problem with Mexican Mustangs, Ford says, because those cars have a slightly different floor pan. Whatever the reason, look for a V-8 with 4-speed in 1976.
On paper the specifications of the 302 would hardly seem conductive to balanced handling: weight distribution without the driver is a noseheavy 60% front/40% rear. Surprise, it really handles. Besides the stiffer springs and bigger anti-roll bars, all shock absorbers have been revalved to reduce porpoising of the front end over dips or during braking. In addition the 3-way adjustable Gabriel shocks (standard with the competition and rally suspensions) have been rebalanced to make the car more neutral during transient maneuvers. The car the EE drove in Dearborn had the competition suspension with the adjustable shocks cranked full hard and was most impressive. Through high-speed sweeping turns, there's mild understeer but in low-speed corners the driver can apply throttle to bring the tail out - a virtual impossibility with the underpowered V-6. There's a little more steering feel (a mid-year change to all 1974 Mustangs) plus faster response to initial steering inputs. For real fast motoring, however, some additional road feedback would be appreciated. The California package with dual catalysts upshifted at about 4000 rpm. Acceleration times were improved slightly by holding the lever in gear and upshifting manually at 4800-5000 rpm but anything higher is a waste because the camshaft is tuned for emissions.
The 302 Mustang isn't aimed at the performance buyer anyway. Rather, Ford says, it's a good highway car - quiet, nice ride, comfortable - but one that is also fun to drive. All this is true but somehow we can't help feeling that lurking in the back of a few minds at Ford are fond remembrances of the previous all-conquering Boss 302.
|
|
