bob

Sure, it was a more upright car designed to crash standards some three decades old, ergo small and feathery in weight. The brutal truth about the fox car is that it wasn't that great an example of engineering. Ford designed a middle of the road econobox that they tried to get the most bang for the buck they could out of it - it was Ford's version of Chrysler's K-car. Fortunately its lightweight and affordability made it a hit with the domestic performance crowd and an entire industry was built around fixing the fox car's inherent problems.

rhumb

Actually, the Fox platform, as first revealed in the Fairmont, was a pretty decent piece of engineering for the day, and light years ahead of what Ford N.A. was putting out previously. Just look at the Baroque Barge, the Granada, that was its predecessor. While the Fox platform had some weak points known even from day one -- rather nose heavy, poorly located rear end that was only better than its leaf spring forbears -- it was a breath of fresh air in its day.

Yes, the Fairmont and even the FoxStang was lighter than the cars of before them, but that was primarily due to much more advanced, CAD based unibody designs that were stiffer and stronger than the Granada or Mustang II before them, never mind the vastly better space utilization, ergonomics and aerodynamics.

While obviously any new Stang would have to be designed to standards 3 decades down the pike from the Fox platform, but there have also, presumably, been 3 decades worth of engineering and technological advancement. I can recall well the bellyaching and foot dragging coming from Detroit in the face of the new fuel, safety and emission standards back then -- the cars would be expensive, heavy, and slow -- and they were until Detroit got serious and the later '70s and started designing better, more advanced cars using new technologies.

Much the same scenario faces Detroit again today -- stricter new emission, safety and economy standards -- and you're hearing some of the same foot dragging if not nearly so much. Will the resultant cars be different? Of course. However, properly designed and engineered they can also be just a fast, exciting and good looking, as Ford showed was possible three decades ago.

bob

I'm sure the Fox cars were an improvment over previous vehicles, but there were better designs at least coming from General Motors - the Monza and its derivatives (beleive it or not) benefited from a torque arm rear suspension and SLA front and had the capability to house a V8 and are every bit the equal of Ford's fox platform with better dynamcis by dint of its suspension. Its to bad the basic architecture more or less died with the car (although the torque arm lived on through the 3rd and 4th gen Camaros).

Honestly, I like the fox cars, I just can't see where they were anything but medicore in engineering. However that said, Ford certainly made wonderful use of the car with its derivatives and the continual refiement the chassis recieved during its stint as Mustang.

I might bash it for being a wet noddle (the cars can actually shink from repeated hard braking in a racing environment if not properly stiffened) which a rear suspension designed to fill the coffers of insurance companies, but its not without its charm and the fox cars are in my book probably the best late model hot rod material to come out Detriot this past generation (a mantle the current car will adopt with little problem once the suppy of fox based Mustangs has dwindled and as the price comes down on the S-197).

Anyways, I find it interesting that folks like to hold up some of the fox car's virtues while disregarding the reasons for them. IMO, given the current regulatory climate and the increasing demands of the buying public for what it considers standard equipment (for example, one of the most famously debated subjects when it comes to Mustangs) we wont be seeing near 3000 lbs V8 Mustang for many moons to come. Ford might be able to improve things a bit and get close; shrink the car some, use lighter and stronger materials to reduce weight, but at best they will probably only be holding the line there and if Ford is committed to keeping the design heritage of the Mustang, big improvements in areodynamics and space utilization are going to be hard to come by.

GTJOHN

I think your correct, and I think Ford can only go so far with the Mustang. Too many changes and it won't be a "Mustang" anymore.

Cut a little length & fat off the car, and I think the majority will be happy.

jarradasay

Honestly, more than length, i would prefer they cut height off the car. Not lower the suspension, but actually re engineer the cockpit such that the roofline/beltline is lowered, but with seat and floor pan modification headroom virtually unchanged.