1982 4.2 Automatic GT

[homer302]

We all know they made '82 GTs with the 4.2. That is no secret. I guess I didn't realize they made automatic GTs and I was just wanting Foxchassis to decode this for me please. I am also hoping the decode will say whether or not it had a hood scoop. I have seen more then a few without a hood scoop though. And one last thing (sorry) again, I knew they came with the 4.2; I believe I am correct in saying it was a CREDIT option? Is that right?

Thanks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Mustang...m=142056892741

[Travis T]

All 4.2 cars were automatics.

[homer302]

Man what a cool piece of trivia. I have to be in the top 5% of Fox knowledge but I probably would have gotten the question "What was the first year an automatic was offered on the Fox Mustang GT" wrong. I would have said '84 1/2. Never too old to learn.

[9D83]

Pretty sure you're right about the credit. My assumption has been that if you wanted a GT in 82 but didn't want to shift they gave you the 4.2 as it would help them meet CAFE with the auto. I would guess the credit was to acknowledge the reduced cost of the lower output V8 and help them move 4.2s, which were still in production, out the door. Guessing the hood scoop would be an option for a 4.2 as it wasn't needed to clear the air cleaner. To reverse your statement, I have never seen a 5L 82(gt or glx) without a scoop

[xctasy]

Yep, only automatic. The advantages of an auto with the saftey of however any horsepower you lost, made it a credti option. Like if you were selling five day old bread...


It was strange that the 4 speed SROD or 5 speed wasn't offered, it would have made the car insanely economical.




The bigger Fox Fords and Panther frame LTD's had an AOD option with the 4.2's, the Fox Capri and Mustangs were all C4 initally, and then C5.


85 rear wheel horsepower thru the hides for all two years, the tune and flywheel hp levels changed a lot with the two carb and frame types it was found in.


The engine was always painted Ford blue underneath, although it sometimes was repainted black








http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...30#post1801230

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...Identification

[BLUECRAPI]

That's a nice car in the link. Always love a silver 82 GT, even with a 4.2.

The price seems a bit steep on this one. I'll defo be keeping an eye on that auction to see what happens.

Is this a members car?

[FoxChassis]

Yes on the invoice credit. I only have one window sticker and it was a $57 credit, BUT the auto trans was an extra $411. Hood scoop was optional on all bodies with the 2.3L (non-turbo), 3.3L I6, or 4.2L V8 engines, and this car did not come with one (code "01" on the buck tag).

[FoxChassis]

VIN
1FA = Ford vehicle manufactured in USA
B = active belts, no airbags
P = passenger car
16 = Mustang 3-dr hatchback
D = 4.2L V8 engine
X = VIN check digit
C = 1982 model year
F = Dearborn Assembly
141475 = 41,475th 1982 Ford scheduled for production at Dearborn Assembly

Door Tag
Date - 11/81 = November 1981 scheduled build
GVWR - 3940 lb/4460 kg = gross vehicle weight rating
Fr GAWR - 2098 lb/63182 kg = front gross axle weight rating
Re GAWR - 1863 lb/3817 kg = rear gross axle weight rating
F0000 = 0 lbs front accessory reserve load
R0000 = 0 lbs rear accessory reserve load
Exterior Paint Colors - 1G = Silver Metallic
Body - 61B = Mustang 3-dr hatchback
Int Trim - FA = cloth & vinyl seating, low-back front buckets (F), Black interior color (A)
A/C - A = manual air conditioner
R - [blank] = no radio
S - [blank] = no sunroof or T-roof
Ax - M = 2.73:1 rear axle ratio, non-locking ("open"/conventional) differential
Tr - C = C5 automatic transmission
RR = rear springs
HH = front springs

Buck Tag
MUSTANG = Mustang model line
141475 = 41,475th 1982 Ford scheduled for production at Dearborn Assembly
61B = Mustang 3-dr hatchback
D = 4.2L V8 engine
0101 = body & paint rotations #0101
1G = Silver Metallic exterior paint color
ST
LL = liftgate louvers
AC = manual air conditioner
07 = rear glass without defrost, hatchback without washer/wiper, with louvers
GT = GT model/trim level
01 = no hood scoop
-A = Black interior trim color

[FoxChassis]

The weight numbers on the door tag are wrong. I will look them up later to see what they should be.

[homer302]

Thank you. So much cool in this car. To me anyway. So getting the 4.2 ALSO brought the 2:73 and no traction lock? So the traction lock must've been combined with the 5.0 package then, not the GT package. I believe all the 5.0 cars got a 3:08 traction lock in 1982 didn't they?
What a conversation piece.

[FoxChassis]

According to the 1982 Car Facts Book, 2.73:1 was the only ratio available with the 4.2L that year, with non-locking being standard and Traction-Lok optional. I'll check the database later to see if that was actually the case.

In 1981 it was 3.08/open, and 3.08/T-L was optional.
In 1980 it was 2.26/open.

Yes, Traction-Lok was standard with the 5.0L engine starting in 1982. (It was not available at all in 1979.) And yes, 3.08 was the only ratio available in 1982 w/ 5.0L.

[JTurbo]

Cool car. I wonder how it drives (power wise). I know my 79 Pace Car (stock) with the auto trans was a dog.....

[BLUECRAPI]

Cool car. I wonder how it drives (power wise). I know my 79 Pace Car (stock) with the auto trans was a dog.....

It's a dog lol. My 4.2 82GT is a touch slower then a stock 79 302. The 302 you could feel a little more torque in the low end, even with hwy gears. Actyally reminds me a lot of my 3.8 86. It just sounds way better.

These cars make really good cruisers and aren't too bad on gas.

[FoxChassis]

According to the 1982 Car Facts Book, 2.73:1 was the only ratio available with the 4.2L that year, with non-locking being standard and Traction-Lok optional. I'll check the database later to see if that was actually the case.

In 1981 it was 3.08/open, and 3.08/T-L was optional.
In 1980 it was 2.26/open.

Database shows 2.73 open and Traction-Lok in 1982 and 2.26 open in 1981 and 1980.

[FoxChassis]

The weight numbers on the door tag are wrong. I will look them up later to see what they should be.

Database is showing:

GVWR = 3940 lb/1787 kg
Fr GAWR = 2098 lb/951 kg
Re GAWR = 1863 lb/845 kg

[Saturn V]

That is a cool car. I love the front end of 82 GTs, but for some reason I'm not crazy about the hood scoop with that combo. So I like the look of these 4.2 GTs without the hood scoop. Hood scoop on hatch or coupe without front lower spoiler? Yes. Pace Car or 80-81 Cobra hood? Yes.

No exhaust tip that I can see on this car. Did the 82 GT 4.2 cars come with the same twin tip exhaust as 5.0, or not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcfairmont]

Wow, you learn something every day! I was 25 years old when the 82 Mustangs were new, and I don"t recall ever seeing a 82 GT that was not a 5.0 2v 4 speed. I still have a 1982 Mustang sales brochure, and nowhere did it mention the availability of either the 4.2 V8 or an automatic transmission with the GT package. Any idea how many 82 GTs were so equipped.

[xctasy]

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Law, each axle combo had to have a CAFE and emission certification. The 2.29, 2.47 weren't able to get a limited slip differential. The 3.08, certainly for 81, and 82. Even the 3.45 for 4 cylinders in 1981 and 82, possibly.


From all info here, traction lock was optional on all 1981's and on.


From that year on, what was said was "you technically got a 3.08, or nothing else". However, for certain we do know one guy here recently decoded a 2.73 Limited slip axle option on his green or black 1981 Mercury Capri, a factory 3.3 car, from memory. FoxChassis hadn't seen that in LSD form for that year before.


I cant be certain because 2.29 and 2.47's were still around on 1981's, but since 1981 and 1982 4.2 Mustangs only have one CAFE Mpg figure set, then there may not have been an 3.08:1 option for those cars.


The clue for an alternative optional ratio are when there are two different mpg figures for the same NON California car.

E.g. 2.3's for 1982 had 3.08 or 3.45 options for the base 4 speed, but the optional 5 speed only had 3.45 axle gears.

Check the 11 th row down in these CAFE 1982 Mustang figures...no other alternate figures, unlike the 4 speed 2.3's. So it would have had the same mileage figures for 2.29, 2.47, and 2.73

http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1982/Ford/Mustang

Check the 13th row for 81 non CA 4.2's....again, no other alternate figures, unlike the non CA 4 speed 2.3's.

http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1981/Ford/Mustang



If you wanted an auto GT with traction lock, it could have become either a 2.73 or at a long shot, there may have been a 4.2 auto and 3.08:1 combo.

It certainly existed in the bigger Foxes and Panthers.

The 82 Thunderbird 4.2/ XR7 Cougar 4.2

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/ma...base/1982.html

and Crown Victoria LTD 4.2

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/ma...door/1982.html

only got AOD's and 3.08 axles.

[xctasy]

And FoxChassis was right. This is what the book says, so 2.26's (not 2.29's and 2.47's, my bad) , 2.73, and 3.08 depending on the year of the 4.2.

Well done!

See http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...ns-axle-combos

[Blainer]

It's a dog lol. My 4.2 82GT is a touch slower then a stock 79 302. The 302 you could feel a little more torque in the low end, even with hwy gears. Actyally reminds me a lot of my 3.8 86. It just sounds way better.

These cars make really good cruisers and aren't too bad on gas.

Remember that 4.2 in your car is bored 30 over with a bigger cam and ported heads.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[BLUECRAPI]

Remember that 4.2 in your car is bored 30 over with a bigger cam and ported heads.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

I've been curious about how much difference that made. I figured that without doing the carb/intake the car isn't getting the full benefit of the work that was done to the motor. You're the only guy that drove it before and after the rebuild. Did you notice an improvement?

I've considered changing the carb/intake/gears to make the car snappier but I don't think it will ever be "fast". I'm ok with that though. It has enough to pass on the highway and I mostly just enjoy putzing around in it on Sundays.

[Blainer]

I've been curious about how much difference that made. I figured that without doing the carb/intake the car isn't getting the full benefit of the work that was done to the motor. You're the only guy that drove it before and after the rebuild. Did you notice an improvement?

I've considered changing the carb/intake/gears to make the car snappier but I don't think it will ever be "fast". I'm ok with that though. It has enough to pass on the highway and I mostly just enjoy putzing around in it on Sundays.

I'd change the carb and intake. Just remember to use the square intake gaskets. It will work on the Oval bore head ports.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[xctasy]

Wow, you learn something every day! I was 25 years old when the 82 Mustangs were new, and I don"t recall ever seeing a 82 GT that was not a 5.0 2v 4 speed. I still have a 1982 Mustang sales brochure, and nowhere did it mention the availability of either the 4.2 V8 or an automatic transmission with the GT package. Any idea how many 82 GTs were so equipped.

No specific numbers relating to th 4.2 auto GT yet. About 1000 and less than 1872 would be a reasonable assumption.

The back drop to it was 3,894 total 1982.4.2 liter D code sales of all types of 1982 Mustang, so it would have been far less than that 3,894 number. Much less than a tenth of all 5.0 liter engine options, which were a little over 25000 quoted by some sources, or less than the 27312 or so for that 5.0 GT hatch option type. The figures are sadly mixed with GL figures, but total P16 Hatch D code numbers were just 1,872


See http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread.php?106123


For some reason, for all years, 4.2 engine option take-up was mortally wounded...about a tenth of the suprisingly strongest ever sales of the enemic 3.3 engine option...which was the true worlds all time dog engine options.


Based on that formerly 85, 87, or 91 hp engine, the much stronger 4.2 wouldn't have had to even try, but it wasn't pushed by marketers the way it should have been.


Any engine as responsive to gearing, intake, camshaft and exhaust sytem swaps as the 4.2 was should have been a sales starlwart. Especially with an AOD option available on ALL other 4.2's.


I prefer to remember this...a 4.2 that eats 5.0's.



You can EASILY get a 35% power boost to 160 hp, and up to 132 mph out of a small bore, small valve, 8.2:1 compresion 255 if you follow the recipe of an ex Ford moto company employee turned journalist.


1.#8005 4160 Holley 4-bbl with proper Ford TV cable linkage,
2.Ford Mustang 302 5.0 Edelbrock #3355 S.P.2-P. 289 4-Barrell Aluminum Intake (modified to suit the heads), or a later 5.0 83-85 5.0 4-bbl intake (modified to suit the heads)



,
3. A source for a similar to Fords 1982 4-bbl Marine Cam (270/290 split duration cam with 278/283 thou lobe lift).
4. An early 1982-1984 3.8 AOD with the stock 2350 stall converter (stock 1650 is too tight for a little Vee Eight, but Ford made a factory 2350 stall converter for the1982 trucks and 3.8 V6's)
5. 3.45:1 Gears and Limited Slip center, old Junked efi turbo 2.3 liter T bird
6. Proper dual exhaust with headers. They used old Cyclone AR1's, a separate thick wall tubing header no longer made (Mr Gasket/Blackjack, and then Headman Headers followed on from them)


The full list is on this page,

http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_04.jpg

[Blainer]

No specific numbers relating to th 4.2 auto GT yet. About 1000 and less than 1872 would be a reasonable assumption.

The back drop to it was 3,894 total 1982.4.2 liter D code sales of all types of 1982 Mustang, so it would have been far less than that 3,894 number. Much less than a tenth of all 5.0 liter engine options, which were a little over 25000 quoted by some sources, or less than the 27312 or so for that 5.0 GT hatch option type. The figures are sadly mixed with GL figures, but total P16 Hatch D code numbers were just 1,872


See http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread.php?106123


For some reason, for all years, 4.2 engine option take-up was mortally wounded...about a tenth of the suprisingly strongest ever sales of the enemic 3.3 engine option...which was the true worlds all time dog engine options.


Based on that formerly 85, 87, or 91 hp engine, the much stronger 4.2 wouldn't have had to even try, but it wasn't pushed by marketers the way it should have been.


Any engine as responsive to gearing, intake, camshaft and exhaust sytem swaps as the 4.2 was should have been a sales starlwart. Especially with an AOD option available on ALL other 4.2's.


I prefer to remember this...a 4.2 that eats 5.0's.



You can EASILY get a 35% power boost to 160 hp, and up to 132 mph out of a small bore, small valve, 8.2:1 compresion 255 if you follow the recipe of an ex Ford moto company employee turned journalist.


1.#8005 4160 Holley 4-bbl with proper Ford TV cable linkage,
2.Ford Mustang 302 5.0 Edelbrock #3355 S.P.2-P. 289 4-Barrell Aluminum Intake (modified to suit the heads), or a later 5.0 83-85 5.0 4-bbl intake (modified to suit the heads)



,
3. A source for a similar to Fords 1982 4-bbl Marine Cam (270/290 split duration cam with 278/283 thou lobe lift).
4. An early 1982-1984 3.8 AOD with the stock 2350 stall converter (stock 1650 is too tight for a little Vee Eight, but Ford made a factory 2350 stall converter for the1982 trucks and 3.8 V6's)
5. 3.45:1 Gears and Limited Slip center, old Junked efi turbo 2.3 liter T bird
6. Proper dual exhaust with headers. They used old Cyclone AR1's, a separate thick wall tubing header no longer made (Mr Gasket/Blackjack, and then Headman Headers followed on from them)


The full list is on this page,

http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_04.jpg

That valley tray is not for the 4.2 as the ports are oval not square.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[xctasy]

Thanks Blainer


Plenty of info form the Fox, Panther and F100 owners who got these engines stock for a few years.


I did a little research. Hope this helps identify the 4.2 engine option for those of us who don't want to be caught out by this engine. Its certainly a aberation that tricks a lot of people in the wrecking yard and ebay.

Use of non stock oval port gaskets on a stock intake and head 255/ 4.2 liter is an issue as the port mismatch is unfavourable, with air fuel mix slamming into an unsealed annular zone. Ever other Windsor V8 from 1962 to 2001 has square ports, not oval.


The first 1980 4.2 ran a RF EOSE-9425 casting intake, which were weird as bat poo, with windowed and high voids intake with all the alloy taken out. Even the carb base was stand alone stud and boss.

It got a revised part in mid 1981, but homer302's 1982 intake should still be similar.

I've not seen a full set of "all angels" photos of the later intake yet, but it is still a swiss cheese high voids casting with very little aluminum. They saved around 65 pounds on the 255 engijne in total, going from 465 dressed without p/s and A/C, to 400 lbs,
most in the crank,
some in the heads,
a little in the intake,
a lot in the exhausts, and
more in the windowing of the bulkheads and downsized thinwall 3.68" bore of the block,

very much like what Pontiac did in the 1978 to 1981 301 engines

Here's a picture I unearthed





There was the mid 1981 swap to 50 Oz unbalance, and another manifold with the same gasket


NOS OEM Ford Intake Manifold Gasket E1SZ-9433-C 1981 Mercury 255 4.2
E1SZ 9433-C 255 V8 Water Passages and Ports




The other 5.0's are indeed square.

In fact, everything 302 from the first J code 4-BBL of 1968 C8ZE-9425-A to the last 1984 4-BBL RF E4 ZE 9425-GA, is all square. Same with 2-bbl intakes for all years. The 255 was the undisputed odd ball, smaller port wise then any 221-260-289 as well.

Its sole purpose was to add 1.5 miles per gallon of Highway fuel economy to the 1980 CAFE fuel figures compared to the 1979 5.0. It did it not just by capacity reduction from a 3.68" bore, but by reducing everything they economically could in the engine.






As for the Edelbrock SP2P 289 4bbl intake #3355 used by Car and Driver in the 160 hp 132 mph project Capri, it was common, but you'll only find 2-bbl 289 versions on ebay.

I got one listing long ago on the 4v 3355, but its no longer there



A 4V HO intake would fit if the porting was reworked, either at the heads, or in the intake by Devocn/JB Weld or Tig welding the curves at the gasket face.

Here's the reasonably common Edelbrock SP2P 289 2bbl version.










That intake came out well before the 255, and it lookes like Edelbrock used the same reduced stud and throttle shaft casting method Ford and AMC used with some of the early 4350 series Autolite 4-bbls to mount the carb.