Talk:Ford Mustang (third generation)

Article needs a lead section. (Vegavairbob (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Lead section added. Throgmo (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

4.9 Liter? What?
Why is the 302/5.0 engine repeatedly referred to as a 4.9? The "302" is about 301.59264 cubic inches, which is 4.94221 L but it has ALWAYS been called a 5.0 by Ford and every other organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.169.255 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because 302 ci = 4.9 liters. Ford called it 5.0 for marketing purposes. The article refers to the model as the 5.0 but engine size is correct at 4.9.  I made an addition to the article to specify it.MartinezMD (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"4.94 L (301 cu in) small block V8[3] (marketed as a "5.0" model)" on the side is incorrectly marked as 301. It should be changed to 302. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.180.137 (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

From 2.8 Cologne to 3.3 Thriftpower Six
Is it true that supplies of the 2.8L "Cologne" V6 proved inadequate by May 1979, and that for the time being Ford resurrected its old 3.3L "Thriftpower" straight-6 engine? I want to know the exact dates of when Ford transitioned from the 2.8L to the 3.3L. WikiPro1981X (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The images in this article are wrong. The red Mustang is actually the older model and the white convetible is the newer model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikinchris (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo error
The images in this article are titled wrong. The Red Mustang is an older model and the white convertible is a newer model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikinchris (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the current labelling. The red mustang has the early square headlights used from '83-86.  The white Mustang early in the article has the "aero" nose and headlights used in '87 up, and is a representative of the group labelled as '79-'93. MartinezMD (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The cars in both photos are visibly modified. The white car has a modified grill and aftermarket wheels, while the red one appears to be a GT with the hood graphics removed. Why include pics that don't accurately reflect the original appearance of 3rd gen Mustangs? Further: The labeling of the red car is confusing. It's not an "1983-1986 Ford Mustang", it's a 1985 or 1986 Mustang GT (impossible to tell from the front). All Mustangs from 1979 thru 1986 had the quad headlights (exception being the SVO, of course). I propose the pictures be replaced altogether with ones that contain unmodified vehicles, and the labeling clarified. Throgmo (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct that they aren't completely stock appearing (and if you can get a public domain replacement photo that would be good), but they are not wrong as stated by the first author. You can modify the description if you want, but the older/newer model issue is correct as labelled.MartinezMD (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1978 introduction
The Fox-body was launched in September 1978, simple as that. The fact that many of you want to employ the use of model years to denote its production run, is quite erroneous and borderline ignorant. Each of the major Mustang changes took place in 1978 (calendar year) for the 1979 model year redesign, 1982 (calendar year) for the 1983 model year facelift, 1986 (calendar year) for the 1987 model year facelift, and in 1989 for driver's airbags being added to 1990 model year vehicles. One such as myself (a busy automotive engineer) does not have time for others' lack of sensible and thorough research, to turn into absurd reverts of, in this case, factual corrections (made by me). If one wants to be using 1979-1993 to denote the model year run, then add that under the "model years" section in the infobox and leave the "production" section as factually 1978-1993 the way it should be. A Mustang redesign for the model year 1979 DID NOT occur IN 1979, when by January 1, 1979 said vehicle was on the market since autumn 1978. The same applies to calendar years 1982, 1986, 1989 for model years 1983, 1987, and 1990.

I am offended that it is absurdly found sufficient to be undoing what I've corrected here, yet more efforts are greatly NOT focused in areas that actually do need fixing from frequent vandalism and misinformed contributions. I only make corrections of such sections as a hobby, due to the popularity of Wikipedia, resulting in it being frequently used a source of information elsewhere online. One does not like having to read and then proceed to correct others' commentary elsewhere of incorrect background information(fabled belief the Fox was introduced in CY1979). Very much DUE to them basing it on Wikipedia information, that came from poorly researched edits that WEREN'T even factual. No one else does my kind of thorough research of archived or dated information. The new 2014 Mercedes-Benz W222 S-Class did not start production in 2014, so it would NOT be sensible nor factual to put 2014-present under "production". Just as the S197 2005 Mustang was NOT launched in 2005 nor was the 1974 model launched in 1974. They were each launched respectively in October 2004 and autumn 1973 as 2005 and 1974 model year vehicles.

Prepositions such as in, "during", "since", and "into" shouldn't be used with model years to refer to actual real-time changes being introduced for a product. Since the 2010 Mustang sales launch was in early 2009, it would not be accurate to say, "In 2010, the Mustang received a redesign." By January 1, 2010, the '10 model had actually been on the market for nearly a year, and design and development of MY2013 facelift (due in spring 2012) was well underway. The proper preposition would be, "For 2010 (model year), the Mustang received a redesign." or even "In the 2010 model year, the Mustang received a redesign.  Using "in" by itself gives readers the false impression that Ford released the newer Mustang for sale during the 2010 calendar year and not in the spring of 2009. Model years should only be preceded by words such as "for" or in conjunction with the words "model year". For example: "The Mustang received a redesign in the 1979 model year. Saying that the redesign occurred in the calendar year of 1979 is incorrect, as it clearly didn't. In conclusion, it is absurd to be using model years strictly as a sense of what constitutes a vehicle's real-time launch or start of production. Calendar years and model years are NOT the same thing. A 2014 model does not refer to a new car launched strictly in the 2014 calendar year, unless stated by the manufacturer as such.Carmaker1 (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You can keep your personal remarks and insults to yourself. Start there and learn how to be civil. Furthermore, your employment is irrelevant to the discussion.
 * Production certainly starts for many, if not most, vehicles in the calendar year prior to the model designation. However legal authorities, manufacturers' marketing literature, and consequently the public's identification of a vehicle is based on model and not production date - this is evident on items such as vehicle titles and sales advertisements (see Ebay as an example). Certainly it is correct to properly identify when a vehicle is produced, and that should be included in the article, however, the sections in this article had been divided by vehicle model, not necessarily production year. Try getting consensus for how to display the section headings rather than responding with inflammatory rhetoric. MartinezMD (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you get a better understanding of the actual differences and relationships between dates of production and model years, as supporting these misleading entries (model years = production dates) that spill over elsewhere as misinformation is detrimental to Wikipedia credibility. If you consider yourself to be personally offended by constructive criticism that isn't my issue nor is the editor-imposed toleration of another party's hypocrisy to me. I'm not interested in regional marketing literature, as they will differ across regions anyway and the main focal point is FACTUAL information and clarity regarding time of release. I will decide what I post regarding my employment, so I have no interest in your singular opinion regarding that.Carmaker1 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand well enough that your employment is irrelevant. Various governments will classify a vehicle model by years other than build date and that is how they are titled. So trying to win some internet argument using your credentials has no influence - we can ask a WP administrator if you have persistent difficulties wanting to discuss it civilly.MartinezMD (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same to you, as you chose to be uncivil by your own initial conduct preceding my commentary here. Do not accuse someone of being uncivil, when you are equally guilty of the same behavior. I am very well aware of how the Ford Motor Company maintains their model years, as well as many other automotive corporations. The use of model years as titling for cars is highly acceptable, as long as it does not refer to real-time calendar years or specific dates(i.e. September 1978, not 1979). I have made my point, you've made yours, and I've proven my case with sources. I am satisfied and finished with the content of this page.--Carmaker1 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not satisfied with all of your changes and this talk page is here for that purpose. That is the point. I don't disagree with your production information. It is self-evident that a vehicle built in 1978 is built in 1978. My disagreement is with changing the article's divisions from models to production years, and rather than get into an edit war, we can discuss it here and see what other editors have to say and get consensus for how the information is presented.MartinezMD (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will change it back to the sections being titled as 1979-1982, 1983-1986, and 1987-1993. That's perfectly fine, as I only had issue with the full reversion of my edits that included changes to the infobox and rewritten sentences. That will resolve all of this.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Faux hood scoop hump on 1979 Turbo Cobra & Indy Pace Car
The reason for the hump on these cars was to make room for the air cleaner, which was elevated due to the turbocharger plumbing. This I know firsthand, as my late father bought me a new one from Berglund Ford in Camden, NJ... And we drove it to the 1979 Indy 500, where we compared it to the Indy Pace Car!

2.3L Turbocharged engine variants
According to FoMoCo's Dr. Serge Gratch, who designed the turbo package, Ford used a specially-designed turbocharged engine for the 1979 model year, which was rated at 12 PSIG boost; but at the last minute the waste gate was set to release at 6 PSIG due to refinery octane lowering from 94 to 93. However, he also told me that if I used "Sunoco 260" 94 octane, I could replace the waste springs to bring the boost back up to 12 PSIG. [He also told me the engine & clutch/trans was safe to at least 18 PSIG if I used 105 Avgas or racing fuel, which I did when I raced at Road Atlanta, but that I needed to install "cheater pipes" to bypass the cat converter... But that's a story for another day!]

Also, although the 1979 model year had a specially-built engine, the FoMoCo "beancounters" killed the program, and the 1980-81 turbo 2.3's used a cheaper bolt-on turbo kit on the 2300 CC Pinto engine, which was a reliability disaster.

Diode for a/c clutch
Where is it located? Donsherri (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)