Some of the scariest things in horror films aren’t usually supposed to be scary. Dolls, for instance, or clowns. But put the right twist on those things, and they turn into nightmares. Likewise, Ford Mustangs aren’t usually thought of as frightening, but there are Mustangs, and then there are Mustangs. Today we’re looking at the latter.
Yesterday’s black sedans weren’t all that scary, but as several of you pointed out, they were definitely bad-guy cars. The Cadillac could easily be the ride of choice of a ruthless mob boss, while the Mercedes has more of an international drug smuggler vibe. However, our villains make their money, I hope it pays well, because the Caddy needs some love to bring it back up to a decent standard, and the Benz will require a lot of maintenance to keep it in its current condition.
IÂ want to like the Cadillac, but I’d like it a lot more if it were a few years older, or half the price. As it stands, I agree that the Mercedes is the better deal, so I’ll side with the overwhelming majority on this one. But it’s still not going to be a cheap car to keep on the road.
When someone says to you, “I drive a Mustang,” you probably have an image of a car that pops into your head. You might picture the iconic ’65 model, or the current generation, or maybe the yellow ’95 GT convertible that your friend’s cute sister used to drive. But what you probably don’t envision, unless you have very strange and disturbing tastes, is either a Mustang II Ghia or a four-cylinder Fox-body. And even if you do, you probably don’t picture them in ghostly white with blood-red interiors, because that would make them extra-scary. But get ready, because that’s exactly what we’re going to look at today.
1977 Ford Mustang II Ghia – $5,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.8-liter OHV V6, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Brentwood, CA
Odometer reading: 90,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives
By now, we all know the Mustang II saga: it was a hit with critics at the time, and a sales success, but it has never been accepted as a “real Mustang” by fans, and has often been used as a lazy shorthand way to encapsulate everything that was wrong with cars during the malaise era. The Mustang II has seen a little bit of a redemption arc recently, though it’s often spoken of with a wink and a nod even by those who claim to appreciate it. Is it a great car? Not even close. Is it the worst car of its era? Not by a country mile.
Part of the problem was that, in its first model year, the Mustang II didn’t even offer a V8 engine, something which had come to be seen as part of the Mustang formula. In its place was Ford’s Cologne 60-degree V6, which had served the Mustang’s European cousin, the Capri, quite well. It wasn’t exactly a heavy hitter, but then neither was the V8 when it finally did come along. The V6 isn’t frightfully slow like the four-cylinder, or thirsty like the V8; it splits the difference and lands firmly in “meh” territory. This one runs and drives, but that’s all the seller will tell us, except that it’s “a bit higher maintenance” than they can handle. Expect to do some tinkering under the hood once you get it home.
The Mustang II was available in a few different flavors; the Ghia emphasized comfort over performance – which was wise, since it had no performance to emphasize – and was equipped like a miniature personal luxury coupe. This one looks surprisingly good inside. Nobody’s interiors held up worth a damn in the ’70s (except Mercedes-Benz), and the fact that badly faded carpet is this car’s worst flaw inside means that someone really treated it nicely. I have no idea why that gigantic zip-tie is on the steering column, though.
A vinyl landau top was part of the Ghia package, and far too many Mustang IIs were so afflicted. At least this one is in decent condition; hopefully, the roof isn’t rusted out underneath. The rest of it looks clean, though, so I wouldn’t expect to find any rust. It even has all four original hubcaps. The ad does say it has a rebuilt title, however, so obviously it has seen some action of some sort.
1991 Ford Mustang LX Coupe – $7,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Union City, CA
Odometer reading: 96,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives
I still remember seeing the Fox-body Mustang for the first time at the Chicago Auto Show in 1979, and it is impossible to overstate how sleek and futuristic it looked compared to the outgoing Mustang II. It was a design that owed nothing to the past except its basic proportions and layout. And amazingly, Ford managed to make it better-looking with each refresh throughout its fourteen-year run. It’s still my favorite generation of Mustang, and judging by the asking prices of them these days, I’m not alone.
The base engine throughout the Fox-body’s run was a 2.3-liter four-cylinder, a carryover from the Mustang II. It gained a turbocharger on two separate occasions over the years, with varying degrees of success. By 1991, there was no turbo option, nor was there any intermediate six-cylinder option between this engine and the V8, but it had gained fuel injection and a twin-spark cylinder head. It’s actually fun to drive with a five-speed manual, but this one has an automatic, which turns the driving experience into the automotive equivalent of light beer. It’ll get you there, but it’ll be a forgettable trip. This one runs fine, but has a transmission leak that should be addressed if it’s bad enough.
I don’t know how many Fox-body Mustang LXs were sold with red interiors, but I bet it’s a lot. It seems like half of the white or silver Mustangs of this era I’ve seen have red interiors, with the other half split between blue and gray. It looks good in red, and this one is in good condition. Even the headliner looks nice. Our old nemesis, the tree-shaped air freshener, makes an appearance, but we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt unless a sniff-test proves otherwise.
This “notchback” coupe bodystyle is prized by those looking to build a hot-rod Fox-body Mustang, because it offers a little more structural rigidity than the hatchback version. It also, I think, looks better, but you do lose the hatchback versatility. This one is in nice shape, though the seller says it has “minor surface rust.” If so, it’s certainly not obvious from the photos. It’s got aftermarket wheels on it, like so many Mustangs of a certain age seem to end up with, and someone added V8-style dual exhaust pipes to it. No word on whether they’re functional.
Really, there’s nothing wrong with either of these cars, except maybe the prices. They’re just not what you think of when someone says “Mustang.” But the great thing about both of them is that they don’t have to stay frumpy and slow; either one is an engine swap away from being a lot more fun, if you want them to be. Which one calls to you?
I’d like to take Fox, but it has world’s shittiest headlamps so…
I really dislike the look of the Fox Body. Always have.
The bar code decal on the windshield, the dust, the chalk markings on the “Pintang”, as well as the rows of cars in the background, lead me to believe these photos were taken at a wholsale dealer auction. The giant zip tie is the kicker, they usually hang the keys on these so they don’t get lost, and can still reach the ignition. My guess is that this was not a “runner”, when these were taken.
A straight solid Fox Body notch with a good interior is probably worth $4,500 or so as roller. It’s probably only worth maybe a couple hundred bucks more with a running 4 cyl, so you can drive it home, instead of trailer it. ” ‘Cuz now yer gonna hafta yank ‘er outta there” for your 5.0 / Coyote swap, and figure out how to get rid old the old drive train.