On Apr 18, 8:04*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:00*pm, "dwight" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > " > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > Do you agree?
>
> > >http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2012/0...-the-10-worst-....
>
> > > Patrick
>
> > I began my Mustang life in a 1974 Mustang II with a six cylinder engine, and
> > loved it enough to go on to own five more Mustangs over the years. Still,
> > I'm okay with half the list being the 1974-1978 years. The OPEC-induced
> > degradation of the Mustang carved about 14 years of performance out of the
> > brand, if you think about it, and, while the Mustang II made sense at the
> > time, it was a BAD move and nothing more than a place-holder.
>
> The idea -- smaller, lighter, "sportier" -- was right. *And the
> styling wasn't bad, for its day. *It was just that the hardware/
> execution was terrible -- the over reliance on plastic fairings/
> scoops, louvers, stickers, and not trying to at least make the
> engine(s), suspension, and transmission(s) sporting.
>
> > It was really
> > the 1988 5.0's that brought us back to acceptable levels of Mustang
> > performance,
>
> I'd argue it started with the '82 GTs.

To go further, I'd say it was the 1982 campaign of "The Boss is Back"
that signaled the "car guys" inside Ford finally had gotten ballsy
enough to take over the asylum. An asylum that had forgotten 'it's
all about the product.'

Patrick