I usually go on and on about cars with big honkin' V-8s in big American iron and leave the sporty little 1980s turbo coupes to my fellow bloggers. That's probably the result of the era that I grew up in, where displacement was king and handling an afterthought, if that. Long hood, short deck, and no fewer than 8 cylinders of raw muscle, that's for me, thankyouverymuch.
In a departure from my usual schtick, I shall now sing the praises of another of the forgotten Mustangs and a true Car Lust special: a 4-cylinder turbocharged Mustang, the SVO (Special Vehicle Operations) made from 1984-1986. It was probably the closest the Mustang ever came to a European-style coupe in terms of execution and all-around performance. And, of course, in true Car Lust fashion, it pretty much went nowhere, too.
It wasn't until 1982 that Ford started getting a bit more serious about performance, bringing back the 302 and upping its power some for the HO version. In 1983, however, they began the process of tweaking the 2.3 to give it some more power, perhaps on a hunch that more gas crises were in the offing (they weren't). In mid-season Ford introduced a Turbo GT hatchback and convertible with a newly rejiggered 2.3-liter engine that they had been developing for the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe.
Most of the new design involved replacing the carb with a new Bosch fuel injector and new engine controls--which they called "EEC-IV" for Electronic Engine Control System 4--that altered the injector timing, idle speed, fuel enrichment, etc., among other modifications. The result got 145 horsepower at 4600 rpm. The changes made for 0-60 times under 10 seconds and fuel economy around 25 mpg. Nice, but the new GT V-8 could best all of those numbers and the Turbo cost $250 more. Consequently, a measly 483 were sold although part of that could be accounted for by a late-season introduction.
Nonetheless, Ford pressed on and in 1984 it introduced the SVO model. Ford went to town tuning it for performance and handling. Engine tweaks included an air-to-air intercooler and electronic controls to vary the boost pressure which, all told, increased horsepower to 175. You could also flip a switch to tune the engine's electronics to the grade of gas you were using, and the 5-speed tranny had a Hurst linkage and Traction-Lok limited-slip differential. Elsewhere, they put in larger front and rear disc brakes, 16-inch wheels, stiffened suspension components, thicker front anti-roll bars, and adjustable Koni shocks. Lookswise, they added a "biplane" rear spoiler, grille-less nose (making it a bottom-breather), front air dam with integrated fog lamps, a functional hood scoop, and spats in front of the rear wheels to improve air flow. The interior was similarly designed with driver functionality in mind, with specially designed "heel and toe" pedals, multi-adjustable seats, and an 8000-rpm tach.
Performance was top notch for the time. The SVO went 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, did the quarter mile in under 16 seconds, and had a top speed of 135. By all accounts the handling was superb: near-neutral, flat in the corners, and precise, direct steering with good road feel. Consumer Guide called it "perhaps the closest thing to a European-style GT yet seen from America." Road and Track (quoted here) was similarly effusive:
"Given the existing Mustang platform, the Ford SVO team could hardly have done a better job of improving [it] to world-class GT standards. Almost all of the things that R&T has stressed as important in a well balanced, universally drivable GT coupe have been incorporated [with] few serious compromises…. [The SVO is] suitable for sustained fast driving on any [road] you're likely to find…giving comfort and assurance all the while…. This may be the best all-around car for the enthusiast driver ever produced by the U.S. industry; we hope it's just the start of a new era."
It wasn't. Gas prices didn't go up, they went down--and U.S. manufacturers started the displacement race all over again. Ford continued to tweak the SVO's engine over the next couple of years, winding up with a little over 200 horsepower in mid-1985, but it wasn't enough to overcome the price/performance differential with respect to the V-8 GTs, which offered similar style and performance for about $6,000 less than the SVO. Consequently, sales were never stellar: 4,508, 1,954, and 3,382 for 1984, 1985, and 1986, respectively. Those might not seem so bad for a specialty model, but word has it that factory lines were set up to produce four times those numbers, making profitability difficult.
And so, Ford's attempt to make a Mustang in the Euro sport coupe mold came to an ignominious end.Why did it fail? Obviously, the price differential with the V-8-powered Mustangs with similar performance specs made it unattractive for Mustang buyers who tend to prefer the healthy growl of displacement over tossability. The Mustang has never been known for its handling prowess, and I say that with no sense of disparagement; that's its niche and it's been spectacularly successful in it. And non-Mustang buyers had other fun sport coupes to choose from including Ford offerings such as the Thunderbird and the Merkur (for those with a Europeanish flair), not to mention various foreign sport coupes like the Celica Supra and VW GTI, both of which probably handled far better than the SVO even with its enhancements. Besides, after the downsizing of the II, Mustang lovers were still no doubt anxious at the very thought of a 4-cylinder Mustang despite the SVOs numbers.
Like the Mustang II, SVOs tend not to garner a whole lot of attention at Mustang shows, or anywhere else for that matter. I saw a couple of them at the last MCA Grand National, but they didn't seem to be crowd favorites. As I mention in the comments to that post, the 1974 Mustang II had a shorter engine bay than later ones--no way to fit in a V-8--and at least one person is in the process of putting a turbo 4 into his '74 which would be screamin' in such a light car. Though a sales disappointment, the SVOs have their own loyal band of enthusiasts as do many of the cars we trumpet around here, and ought to be remembered for an innovative approach to transforming a traditional pony/muscle car into an all-around performer while still being easy on the gas.
Credits: The top photo comes from AllFordMustangs.com and the second is from Schnack.com, both found in various places as well. The engine photo is from MustangMonthly.com (obviously). The print ad comes from FourEyedPride.com.