Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

30 Years - 2015 Ford Mustang GT Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
edited February 2015 in Ford
image30 Years - 2015 Ford Mustang GT Long-Term Road Test

When John and Marla moved in next door to my mother in 1989, they brought their 1985 Ford Mustang GT with them. Almost thirty years later, they still live next to mom and they've still got their Mustang. And yes, it still runs and drives.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • Options
    jeepsrtjeepsrt Member Posts: 88
    I can't believe a car from 1985 still runs and drives, amazing.....
  • Options
    bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    edited February 2015
    First, of course it runs and drives. There are many thousands of fox body Mustangs on the road. The pushrod 5.0 is a very very sturdy engine and the overall build of the car is robust. Rust is an issue in the Midwest of course, but there is no reason that warm climate cars shouldn't last practically forever with basic care. And I see a fair amount of clean 85-93 GT's on the Chicago Craigslist.

    And fuel economy wise, I can tell you from personal experience with the '87 LX 5.0 5-speed I bought in 198 that 25 on the highway was easily achievable. I was only turning 2,000 rpms at 70. It was a great road trip car.
  • Options
    bucho65bucho65 Member Posts: 11
    $13,500 might have been for a loaded convertible in 85 but the hard top GT started under $10,000 according to this C&D test http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1985-ford-mustang-gt-review I'd like to see a comparison of interior space. I have an 88 5.0 and I'm surprised how small inside the 15 Mustang is given it's outside dimensions.

    I will say the 15 Mustang is a completely different car than the Fox body Mustangs were. The 15 is a thoroughly engineered halo car for Ford, while a fox body is a cheap econo car with a V8 with just enough engineering thrown in to keep you from spinning out into a tree on a dry day. A lot was left on the table with the fox body and numerous companies were created to help them reach their potential, such as Griggs, Maximum Motorsports, Steeda, Saleen, etc.
  • Options
    bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    I think the perceived difference in interior room is because the 79-93 Fox Mustangs have taller side windows, more upright windshields, thinner A and B pillars, and in the case of the hatches, larger rear windows. You get so much more light and have so much better sight lines that you can't help but feel like there is more interior volume even though that might not be the case.
  • Options
    desmoliciousdesmolicious Member Posts: 671
    Did the 1985 Stang ever make 210hp? I remember Ford having to re-certify that motor at under 200hp a few years later.

    p.s that photo does not show the colour faithfully. It is way more orange than that.
  • Options
    bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    I was wondering that too. Per the C&D test it was still carburated and rated at 210/265. The FI 5.0 came in 1986. My '87 was rated at 225/300, but a few years later Ford admitted to gaming the system with an exceptionally strong engine and downrated to 215/300 IRRC.
  • Options
    allthingshondaallthingshonda Member Posts: 878
    Not surprised it is still running. Ford's old Windsor V8 is an extremely durable, reliable engine.
  • Options
    kshankarkshankar Member Posts: 175
    I bought a brand new 85 Mustang GT for 12700 with taxes rolled in. It did not have t tops, power windows, or power locks but had Ford "Premium Sound" stereo system. 1985 was the last year of the 5.0 liter with carburetor and rated at 210 hp.
  • Options
    bucho65bucho65 Member Posts: 11
    85 was rated at 210hp, 86 was 200hp because they used high swirl heads that were not that good. In 87 they went back to a similar head as 85 and were rated at 225hp. From 87-93 there were small changes to the engine, such as different cams, going to mass air in 89, and possibly tweaks to the ECM plus they supposedly revised their measurement procedures for rating horsepower resulting in the 93 rating of 205hp. IMO 1/2 the reason they downgraded the horsepower was because when the new body style came out in 94 they had a more restrictive intake and less aggressive tune in the ECM and it wouldn't look good to come out with the next generation of Mustang with less horsepower. It is well known the 87-88 speed density Mustangs are the strongest running of the Foxes in stock form.
  • Options
    bucho65bucho65 Member Posts: 11
    bankerdanny,

    I looked up the specs and from what I could find is the 15 Mustang is 9.3" longer, 6.3" wider, 2.3" higher, 6.5" longer wheel base, 5.4" wider front track, and 8" wider rear track than an 87 Mustang. Obviously a much bigger car. How does this translate to interior space? You only gain 1.9" of front leg room, 2.1" of front hip room, 2.7" of front shoulder room, .7" of rear leg room and .1" of rear shoulder room. The newer model actually loses .5" front and .3" rear headroom. Basically you gain around 2" of front shoulder, hip, and leg room and the back seat is relatively the same size. That is what I found surprising.

    Not that I'm busting on the new car. That is what happens with 30 years of safety standards and a chassis stiffer than a sheet of tin foil.
  • Options
    dgcamerodgcamero Member Posts: 148
    bucho65 said:

    bankerdanny,

    I looked up the specs and from what I could find is the 15 Mustang is 9.3" longer, 6.3" wider, 2.3" higher, 6.5" longer wheel base, 5.4" wider front track, and 8" wider rear track than an 87 Mustang. Obviously a much bigger car. How does this translate to interior space? You only gain 1.9" of front leg room, 2.1" of front hip room, 2.7" of front shoulder room, .7" of rear leg room and .1" of rear shoulder room. The newer model actually loses .5" front and .3" rear headroom. Basically you gain around 2" of front shoulder, hip, and leg room and the back seat is relatively the same size. That is what I found surprising.

    Not that I'm busting on the new car. That is what happens with 30 years of safety standards and a chassis stiffer than a sheet of tin foil.

    Hurray for safety and non-tin foil chassis!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles