| |
Shape Of The Seventies
The new Mustang II emerges smaller and lighter to meet the realities of the decade ahead.
|
It was rumored will in advance that the all new 1974 Mustang would be a "small" car, but no one knew for sure exactly what that meant. Everyone assumed it would be larger than a bread box, but beyond that, "small" means different things to different people. As it turns out, most people will agree that it is indeed a small car, since it fits into the present day Ford lineup, lengthwise, between the Pinto and the Maverick and is actually nearer the size of the Pinto than the Maverick.
But probably of more interest to Mustang watchers is how it compares with the original 1965 Mustang (actually introduced in April 1964) and the superseded 1973 Mustang. Even with the larger bumpers made necessary by current federal standards, the Mustang II is 6.6 inches shorter than the 1965 model and 8.8 inches shorter than the 1973 model. While about 2 inches each wider and lower than the original, it is approximately 4 inches narrower and only slightly lower than last year's Mustang.
External dimensions are important when it comes to styling, garaging and parking, but as a people carrier, the internal ones are what count. The first Mustang had a bit more shoulder and hip room, while the '74 has more head room and exactly the same front leg room. There is about 2 inches less rear leg room than in the original but only about a half-inch less than the 1973 model has. When you consider that the Mustang II is substantially shorter overall and has about a foot shorter wheelbase, you can see that Ford engineers have accomplished a far more efficient job of packaging people than on previous efforts.
By size alone is no way to judge a car, companies like Daimler-Benz keep telling us, and such is the case with the Mustang II. The car, in Detroitese, has a "high level of product content," which, freely translated, means that it was designed to be quieter, ride better, have better appointments and fit and finish, more standard equipment and features ("...the base models shouldn't 'look base!'") plus all-around good value for the money and economy of operation.
Making the standard model a more complete, desirable, decent looking car is a wise move on Ford's part and a principle they've previously applied with marketing success to the Pinto. Ford has perceived that this has been a growth factor in what they call the "sporty subcompact category" (composed mostly of imported cars). Rather than make the base Mustang II something acceptable only as a "company car" or government-issue for lower-echelon civil servants (or to low-ball the sticker price and force buyers into extra-cost options), such things as simulated woodgrain interior, tachometer, ammeter and 4-speed manual transmission are standard equipment. Furthermore, there's enough standard bright trim, wheel covers, etc. to banish that "cheapie look" that has, in the past, been the hallmark of base models of domestic cars.
Ford Motor Company currently leads the industry in noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) control, taking into account all passenger car models produced by all of its divisions, and they've lavished their knowledge on the Mustang II. The floor pan and other panels in the car have a bonded-on coating of what Ford calls "expanded rubber." It's black like tire rubber, but instead of being resilient when you poke it with your fingernail it takes an imprint, about like bubble-gum does, that very slowly disappears. This characteristic is what engineers call "high hysteresis," meaning the gummy consistency tends to absorb noise and vibrational energy by converting it to heat. It works much the same way that conventional undercoating does except more so, and it's much easier to control the application in order to assure uniform results. Additional sound absorbing materials are used throughout the car, including the hood and roof.
Besides using sound absorbing materials, there is a second method of NVH control know as isolation, or designing structural components to reduce noise transmission. With this in mind the Mustang II has a "mini" sub-frame at the front to which the compression struts from the front suspension's lower control arms are attached. Also attached to the sub-frame is the engine transmission assembly. The mini-frame itself is mounted to side rails of the underbody through rubber isolators. The portion of road shock and vibration routed to the mini-frame is transmitted into the mass of the engine-transmission assembly instead of the body structure.
The front suspension of the Mustang II differs from that of the old one in that the spring and shock absorber act on the lower control arm and are anchored at top near the inboard pivot of the upper control arm in much the same manner as on the larger Fords. In the previous Mustang the springs and shocks perched atop the upper arm and were anchored to the body structure in the front fender apron spring towers. Not only does the new suspension reduce the transfer of road shocks directly to the body structure, it also leaves more room in the engine compartment by eliminating the spring towers.
In addition to the slight rearward movement permitted by the above-mentioned compression struts, the Mustang II's suspension geometry is arranged to cause the wheel to move rearward as it moves upward in response to road jolt. Thus this designed-in wheel recession mitigates the force of road shocks right at their source.
Isolation at the rear is accomplished by butyl rubber cushioning between the axle and the leaf springs and exceptionally large (1.9-inch) rubber bushings in the shackle attachments so that there are not metal-to-metal contacts between sprung and unsprung components. The rear shock absorber mounts also have added rubber. On the Ghia model of the Mustang II, there is yet additional rubber isolation at the forward spring hangers as a part of a deluxe sound package.
Other anti-NVH measures include close-piloted wheels to assure more precise running concentricity, a high bolt pattern between engine and clutch or converter housing to cut down deflections, a large 3.5-inch diameter drive shaft for greater rigidity and isolated steering gear mounting.
Our test car was an engineering prototype Mach 1 (the production line had not yet started up) with the standard (with the Mach 1 option) 2.8-liter, German-built V-6 that first appeared last year in the Capri in 2.6-liter form. It hasd the 4-speed manual transmission, air conditioning and emissions control equipment that was supposed to approximate the stricter-than-elsewhere California level of control. (Neither this engine nor the standard 2.3-liter 4 had completed qualification tests at the time.)
Due to the new front and rear bumper requirements, roof crush resistant structure, occupant protection door beams, etc. the Mustang II is deceptively heavy, with the base 2-door, 4-passenger model with the 4-cylinder engine weighing in at 2679 pounds and the 3-door model, on which the Mach 1 is based, tipping the scale at 2750 pounds. (The base Mustang II 4-cylinder is actually heavier than the original 1965 base Mustang with a 6-cylinder engine.) In case of the Mach 1, adding to the poundage is the V-6 engine. Then on top of this such things as air conditioning (over 100 pounds), power steering, larger wheels and tires, radio etc. put a well-equipped 3-door in the 3000-pound class. While the acceleration we obtained is perfectly satisfactory for normal driving, anyone requiring more will have to choose things differently. The ultimate performing Mustang II will be a 2-door model with the V-6 option, no air conditioning, and as few other options as the owner cares to live with.
We obtained the acceleration figures recorded by revving to around 500-5500 rpm and popping the clutch and letting the rear wheels spin for a short distance. Ford proving ground engineers say that, to get the last dregs of standing performace, one should take the V-6 to only 4000 rpm and, while opening the throttle, hold it there by slipping the clutch when making the start so that there is no wheelspin at all. This is without a doubt true, but does, of course, greatly shorten the life of the clutch.
Greatly enhancing off-the-line performance of all Mustang IIs from the lowliest on up is the fact that the rear shock absorbers are stagger-mounted - the left one behind the axle and the right one ahead. This feature, formerly available only with the competition, effectively eliminates power hop.
With the Mach 1 model you get the V-6 with dual exhausts, the BR70 x 13 radials, the black treatment to the lower half of the body, and several other identification and trim features. But for the ultimate round-the-corner performance, the competition suspension is recommended which consists of heavy duty springs all around, adjustable shock absorbers all around and a rear stabilizer bar (a front one is standard). The shock absorbers are manually adjustable to regulate the difference between jounce and rebound control.
Our test Mach 1 had the competition package which we found rode quite well on normal road surfaces and provided fast, flat, secure cornering. Understeer isn't very pronounced until a very high cornering force is developed. At the limit, which comes with plenty of warning, the car refuses to follow a circular path and continues on straight ahead. The particular road used to check out cornering behavior has some pieces of slag on it about the size of marbles in places, and we happened to hit some of it just right under hard cornering which caused the rear end to suddenly swing out. Thanks to the quick power steering, we were able to save it by unwinding and cranking in some opposite lock. Anything slower would have meant losing it for sure.
The standard disc/drum brakes used on the 3000-pound new Mustang, being of greater capacity than the brakes used on the 4000-pound muscle cars a few years ago, are fully up to the job. We found that "panic" stops were not panicky at all.
As promised by the dimensions, the front seats are roomy and comfortable and, especially for a small car, easy to get in and out of. The legislated industry wide ignition-seat belt interlock balked a couple of starts when we forgot to do things its way, but that's about the only impediment normally supple people will encounter. The rear seats, like those of previous Mustangs, should be thought of as occasional only for adults.
The woodgrain instrument panel is quite large for the size of the car, lending the impression that you're behind the wheel of something much larger. This is probably intended, and anyone used to upper series or luxury FoMoCo products of the last few years will feel right at home. The standard instruments (there are no optional ones offered - nor needed) have flat faces, but they are deeply recessed in flat-black holes which practically elimintates reflections. They are also full exposed to the driver's view. All controls are laid out pretty much to domestic car standards with no tricks or surprises.
While there is some minor distortion due to the sharply angled rear window, all around visibility is good because the car has lots of glass area for its size. Enough of the extremities of the car are visible to make backing and parking easy and safe maneuvers.
Except for the acceleration runs we used the air conditioning constantly during the test, the weather being hot and humid. The cool-downs after soaking in the heat were quick, and the cooling air vents are in all the "right" places, making this system fully the equal of those of larger cars. Even after prolonged idling, the engine temperature never got far above normal. We couldn't bear turning the heater on under the circumstances, but we have every reason to believe the 2.8 V-6, which is quite large for this size of car, can handle the coldest climates.
When testing the Mach 1, we had an opportunity to briefly drive several other versions of the Mustang II, including some with the 2.3-liter 4. Some has standard interiors which were more than acceptable, with others having various optional interiors which were downright luxurious. Particularly impressive was the Ghia model, which comes in notchback form. It had a very posh interior, an even quieter ride than the regular Mustang II and the road feel and riding comfort level of a much larger car. It's really a "mini" version of the class of cars that the 1974 Cougar (Montego-based) belongs to. It could well be the most popular of all the Mustang II models.
The new 4-cylinder engine when coupled to the also new mono-rail (only one shifting fork rail inside) 4-speed manual gearbox gave adequate, but by no means neck snapping performance. In cars with the same engine and the automatic trasmission the torque converter stall speed was quite high, meaning that a fair number of revs had to be showing on the tachometer before the car would start to move. We surmise the transmission is set up this way so that the idle speed can be increased as required to handle an air conditioning compressor and other power accessories without causing the car to creep.
Time did not permit obtaining any gas mileage figures on either the V-6 or 4-cylinder engine, but depending on the final state of emissions controls, our guess would be 16-18 mpg for the V-6 and about 4-5 mgp better for the 4-clylinder.
The overall impression of the very well road-mannered new Mach 1 is that those who prefer this type of car will find it altogether more personal - and personable - than its immediate predecessor.
The new Mustang line, as rumors have promised, bring some much needed freshness and excitement to the 1974 new car scene at a time when it seemed that safety and emissions compliance might stagnate passenger car design. Ford has great expectations for the car, and wee see no reason why they won't be fulfilled.
|
|
