Do you think Ford will ever build a "retro" Fox-body Mustang?

[mrriggs]

One thing I always loved about the Fox-body Mustangs is that they were the only Mustangs that didn't try to imitate the first generation Stangs. They looked good all on their own; clean, simple, and original.

Since it would appear that car makers no longer know how to make a good looking original design, do you think Ford will ever make a "retro" Fox-body Mustang? The relevance of the first-gen design will fade as baby boomers get too old to drive. Will gen-X still want a new Mustang that looks kind of like what Dad [or Grandpa] drove? Will millennials have any interest in Mustangs at all?

[BTD]

Dear God I sure hope not.

Sent from my F8131 using Tapatalk

[homer302]

I doubt it and also hope not. To make the proportions look right they would have to make it smaller than a 71-73 Mustang, which the 2015+ is NOT. It's actually larger than one.

[STL79Coupe]

I would be happy if Dynacorn made the bodies.

[xctasy]

I doubt it and also hope not. To make the proportions look right they would have to make it smaller than a 71-73 Mustang, which the 2015+ is NOT. It's actually larger than one.

Aint that the truth!

The Quick Brown Fox is

....Its light, lieth, Italianette, and has all the slightly lanky flavour of the old 65 to 67 I6 Mustangs, the ones that really sold....

while the 15+ S550

It's never been wider or taller, but it has been longer and heavier....

The Fox Mustang is universally loved elseware in the world,


it may be Ford Mercury Capri II sized, and small and spunky.



But it had none of the Capri II's proportions, the Foxes platform was radically changed, yet they really worked!



The Pinto/Mustang II base gave birth to the proportion change,




the Fox made it an anthem.


Both the Mecury Capri Fox and the Fox Mustang pre-empted the Audi Quattro....Lido nailed the FOX platforms needed hood to first door proportions pefectly, the dash, and a pillar to the same rack and pinion steering postion was basically maintained, and the modfied Mc Pherson strut was basically on the same kind of Mustang II plinth and straight through chassis out riggers.





It was devised by Jac Talenacs team, the same that did the Fiesta and the Itialian-esque hard lines, Ghia influence from Tom Tjaara. http://jalopnik.com/take-a-moment-to...man-1795760216.

The Fox Mustang notch is a 100% De Tomaso Longchamp/ Maserati Kylamai Tipo 129 rip off. only prettier, slimer, lighter, and in most performance variants, stronger, harder and faster.....

All the right influence, from a crapload of styling clinic work...they didn't want another Edsel!

Wheelbase 102.4 in. (2600 mm)
Length 181.1 in. (4600 mm)
Width 72 in. (1830 mm)
Height 51 in.(1295 mm )
Curb weight 4001 lb (1815 kg) (GTS)

vs Gen Three 79-93

Wheelbase 100.5 in (2,553 mm)
Length 179.6 in (4,562 mm)
Width 1987–1990: 69.1 in (1,755 mm)
1991–93: 68.3 in (1,735 mm)
Height 1987–1990: 52.1 in (1,323 mm)
1991–93 Coupe: 52 in (1,321 mm)
1991–93 Hatchback: 52.1 in (1,323 mm)

Curb weight 2548 - 3442 lbs (1156-1561 kg )

http://www.carstyling.ru/ru/car/1972...aso_longchamp/

Lancias, Saabs, Isuzus, SEATs, LaForzas, more DeTomasos, Fiats, Chryslers, sports cars, econoboxes, SUVs, sedans, everything, everything, and everything looking great

No-one notices its long nose like they did on the Mustang II, and the 71-73's were the biggest looking due to the Lamborghini Espada style proportions.


This was the Mustangs finest hour, and why I love mass production, Talenac got into cab forward by cutting the a pillar to front gaurd spacing and the 1978 626 Mazda Coupe and Sedan rear backlight just perfect




The wheel arch to front door had to be increased in 1994 for crash safety, but nose it was always so short, Pinto/ Mustang II/ T series Cortina/Taunus TC-1, so it wasn't the Bruno Sacchi kind of 350/450SL/SLC and '65 to '73 Mustang Pony Car hood below thwe cat walk, it got the length by having it added to the front on the Endura style nose).

The Hatch,



it was copied by Mazdas 626 5 door and the Aussie Telstar TX5 'bustleback' variant. Ford went 35% into Toyo Kogyo for a reason....

[BMW Rider]

I would be happy if Dynacorn made the bodies.

That seems unlikely to happen given the numbers of Fox chassis's made throughout the years. Too many still available for low cost and in decent or repairable condition. It would be nice to see more replacement pieces though.

[erratic50]

I'm surprised a restomod shop hasn't started turning out a foxbody done a few specific ways with their own parts. Driveline done with a coyote 5.0 crate, upgraded brakes, and a 6-speed.

Foxes are one of those cars where the potential profit margin is just too low currently.

[Basin Motorsports]

I'm surprised a restomod shop hasn't started turning out a foxbody done a few specific ways with their own parts. Driveline done with a coyote 5.0 crate, upgraded brakes, and a 6-speed.

Foxes are one of those cars where the potential profit margin is just too low currently.

The Foxes just aren't seen as a "muscle car" like the 60's cars are today. I walked around a car show this weekend and there were ZERO Foxes there. Every other generation there though. Since it's a subframe car (rather than a full chassis like a Caamro or Chevelle), it's just a matter of picking the suspension company (Maximum Motorsports, Griggs, UPR, Team Z, etc.). I think if someone wanted one built, a shop would do it. No one seems to want a Pro Touring Fox as the thread on here didn't go anywhere. If there are no pioneers building them, no one knows what they can be built into.

[ZephyrEFI]

I think the most we'll get is some sort of "nod" to a Fox styling cue in a future car. Something small like a SVO-like striping design in the taillights or recesses in the C-pillars that recall the quarter window louvers.

As for Pro-Touring, I'd offer that the Fox's suspension is FAR more competent than your typical muscle car's in stock form (part of the reason people love them as race cars), so it doesn't require the major reworking something like an Art Morrison chassis offers.

[erratic50]

The thing is while certain dunces don't think of a foxbody as a muscle car, our beloved fox chassis as drag cars hold more titles than any other in drag racing history. There is absolutely no question that these old beasts will hook and book. Those of us who were stalking the streets in the late 80's to early 90's and beyond absolutely ruined a lot of "muscle car" guy's night. Pair a strong running stock foxbody that's turned up with a loose cannon behind the stick and that car will beat the most respected muscle cars of that time period if they were anything near stock form.

Running low 13's on the street was something back then. And the guys with the Dominators were among the few that had the chance to beat a well tuned factory foxbody car..... When I ran into one it was a real battle. I got him but he wanted double or nothing. I told him best 3 out of 5, and in the end he pissed me off when I broke my motor mount on the 4th pass and couldn't run the final must win. That was when I got educated about what the hell a dominator is. I felt good about dragging his butt for him - twice - though. Gapped him once, by a fender once, the other two he hooked and wasn't sleeping. Lol.

I guess I got a taste of what the other muscle car guys felt like when the bumped into cars like mine.

I think the reason we get no respect is because we don't have big horsepower numbers. People don't understand torque or torque to weight until they get their butts dragged down the street by one of our cars.

The two I felt the best about back in the 90's were beating
1) a freshly rebuilt 68 Camaro with a 425HP 427 and a 4-speed.
2) 440 6-pack challenger with 4-speed

Then there were the ones I beat a few times and didn't others....

Paid for groceries in college, what can I say....

[mrriggs]

The Foxes just aren't seen as a "muscle car" like the 60's cars are today.

I agree the "Boomers" don't don't see the Fox Mustang the same way they see the original, and they are still the dominant market of muscle cars. Most car guys can trace their affliction back to their childhood and can probably tell you the exact car that got them interested. For boomers, that would likely be a 60's muscle car.

I'm a young Gen-Xer. When I was twelve, my dad traded in the Escort wagon for an '86 Mustang GT 5.0 5-speed, black with red guts. That was THE car that cemented my fate as a life long car guy. I've mostly owned and been exposed to 60's Fords because that is what my extended family is into. As cool as they are, they don't transport me back to MY childhood the same way Fox-bodies do. I'm still in family mode, raising three small children. It will be many years until I could think about buying a new car.

What's the Fox-body market going to look like in 10 years when my generation has more disposable income and is looking to recapture their youth?

[BMW Rider]

I think the reason we get no respect is because we don't have big horsepower numbers. People don't understand torque or torque to weight until they get their butts dragged down the street by one of our cars.

There is also a bit of disparity between the HP number from the 60s and from the mid seventies on. In the early 70s we saw a huge drop in published HP numbers and it was blamed largely on the push for new fuel efficiency and the smog elimination. While that was partially true, the biggest factor was the change in how SAE mandated HP was measured. Prior to the change, engines were tested with open exhaust manifolds, no air cleaners to restrict intake and no belt driven accessories on the engine to parasite any HP from the numbers. Once SAE standardized the testing procedures, engines were required to be tested as they would be run in the car with full exhaust and intake components, and driving the water pump and alternator and other standard accessories. This led to much more realistic HP numbers being listed, but of course made them seemingly much less than before.

[BTD]

Having owned many of the "streetable" type of cars, the Foxbody platform - Foureyed,carbed - appeals to me because it's 80's. If I wanted a fuel injected car... well I can do wayyyyyy better than a fox for less money(Rx-7,supra,talon tsi etc) For me it's the perfect mix of the hardlines (I hate curves and rounded lines on cars) and engine tech. The 302 is a very stout engine that gives you good power and torque, combine that with the low weight and rwd with a locked axle and it' fun to drive in a straight line.

The newer mustangs are round bubbles of crap that are trying too hard to be something that they never will be.

[blueandsilver]

I don´t think Ford will ever build a "retro" Fox Mustang, though it would be awesome. Since 2005 Mustangs have gotten way too big and porky (take no offense, I actually have a 2014 and had a 2015 that I sold).

To me, the ideal size for a Mustang is the SN95 which is basically a Fox platform, slightly wider and larger...

I do hope Dynacorn DOES NOT start selling Fox body shells... even though now I am sure that us Generation Xers are definitely collecting our 80s Mustangs and they are becoming desirable, I hope we keep to our originals and not start building replicas.

The whole Muscle car thing... to me our cars are definitely comparable to the classics of the 60s despite not having the same power... its just so easy to make them faster.

To me the only lacking point throughout the Fox generation was that there were no Shelbys, no Bosses, no Mach Ones... only our 93 SVT which is sure to become (it already is) the "king" of the Fox generation.

[mrriggs]

I don´t think Ford will ever build a "retro" Fox Mustang, though it would be awesome. Since 2005 Mustangs have gotten way too big and porky (take no offense, I actually have a 2014 and had a 2015 that I sold).

To me, the ideal size for a Mustang is the SN95 which is basically a Fox platform, slightly wider and larger...

For me, they got too fat in 1994. Maybe a "retro" Fox Mustang will be the return to a small platform. After all, the mass appeal of the Mustang hasn't been it's blinding speed. Sure there have been a handful of "Hi-Po" models to keep up the street cred, but the majority of new Mustang buyers got base models because they are cheap, simple, fun, and look cooler than a family sedan.

The purists hate on the Mustang II but Ford sold a heck of a lot more of them than they did the behemoth early 70's Stangs. There was another huge spike in sales in 1979. None of the later generations have matched this. It would be interesting to see the sales charted by weight rather than year. I imagine you would see that sales are inversely proportional to the size.

[ZephyrEFI]

I had a lot of hope that the '15 would shrink and get lighter, but now knowing what the pony car market is now compared to what it was in the '80s... I just don't think it will ever happen. It needs to maintain street cred, and that means big footprint, big engine. Ford is partially responsible for making the pony car market what it is now. When they went to the S197, it was based on a fairly large, heavy luxury car. On one hand, they found a way to be able to keep building Mustangs and make them affordable, but on the other hand, it also introduced the idea of the "old guy's Mustang". Guys that owned '60s versions before they had families were now empty nesters and looking for something fun to drive. Accidental or not, it's kinda brilliant (again!). Hence, Chevy and Dodge following suit (again!). That's what a Mustang is now. Totally different from what it was in the '80s.

Hey, how's this for an idea. Ford comes out with a smaller, bare bones, more angular styled (retro Fox?) performance car and calls it (of all things) the Fox! No one remembers the VW Fox anyway, right? It would certainly shut us guys who complain about how big and bloated the Mustang has become up...

[BTD]

For me, they got too fat in 1994. Maybe a "retro" Fox Mustang will be the return to a small platform. After all, the mass appeal of the Mustang hasn't been it's blinding speed. Sure there have been a handful of "Hi-Po" models to keep up the street cred, but the majority of new Mustang buyers got base models because they are cheap, simple, fun, and look cooler than a family sedan.

The purists hate on the Mustang II but Ford sold a heck of a lot more of them than they did the behemoth early 70's Stangs. There was another huge spike in sales in 1979. None of the later generations have matched this. It would be interesting to see the sales charted by weight rather than year. I imagine you would see that sales are inversely proportional to the size.

I'm with you on 93 - I felt the same way about the Fbody platform when they took the hard straight lines out of the firebird and Camaro and made them large fat rounded pieces of junk. Sure they had better engines and tech, but they are ugly as all get out. Foxbody 4eye for me all the way or nothing, the aero front end is ugly, and they just made them rounder and uglier after that. As was said you don't buy a stang for performance, as there are far superior cars in that department.

[gr79]

Would be interesting to be able to replace a worn out favorite product with new of good materials.

Does not have to be lifetime tough, loaded with everything, seeking perfection. just dependable, affordable.
Now so complex, cannot manufacture several base models then add options anymore.
Not willing to finance any items i will never use even if. The now standard former options.
Options add to resale? bs. Who wants a loaded used car needing repairs to that obsolete fluff.

Do not need a hard to match 10 year life show car paint job. Make that an option.
The standard a/c that lasts 5 years. Limited yearly use in the north like a heater down south.

When the hell will the day come when all this tech will lower the fixed costs of living?
Put tech to work for making people's lives happier, more inexpensive, and simpler.
Pass on cost savings, not brag about profit taking or labor costs.
No to financial stress, unnecessary complexity, to do what used to be simple tasks.
Whatever happened to control knobs? The things you can find by feel.

Initial cost, huge repair bills, insurance premiums, bs fees/surcharges, even big fine minor tickets.
Eat up big money per month.

Example: Michigan insists on basing cost for annual license tag on new car MSRP, even if car is 20 years old.
Junk car, new car license cost forever.

[Basin Motorsports]

What's the Fox-body market going to look like in 10 years when my generation has more disposable income and is looking to recapture their youth?

I think you will see a similar trend to what we see today on the muscle cars. The companies making parts will still be making parts. Replacement parts from companies like NPD and Fox Restoration (OEM replacements) will continue on. Less cars are available every year, and even less with clean bodies and parts. The originals that have been kept clean will continue to go up in value a little bit every year. All the pieces are available to build a car capable to run with today's supercars. 1,000hp, 6-speed, pulling 1G in the corners, etc. Have the money, you can or have built what you want. As more people have disposable income, the more high caliber builds will be done.