Author Topic: Easy 79 Question  (Read 1084 times)

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13872
Easy 79 Question
« on: April 26, 2016, 08:49:16 PM »
Was the 255 Cu in engine used in production 1979 Mustangs?

Thanks
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 12:52:14 AM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline carlite65

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
5F09C331248

Offline KevinK

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2016, 12:25:21 AM »
Sounds about right. The 5.0 returned with "the Boss is back".

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13872
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2016, 12:48:33 AM »
Thanks guys
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline 67gta289

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2016, 12:49:56 AM »
Pretty sure it was 302 in 1979, then 255 in 1980 and 1981, then back to 302 in 1982.
John
67 289 GTA Dec 20 1966 San Jose
MCA 74660

Offline BobV

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2016, 08:26:49 AM »
Pretty sure it was 302 in 1979, then 255 in 1980 and 1981, then back to 302 in 1982.
That's what I have as well, although there were SOME 255's used in 82.
1986 Saleen Mustang
46k miles 98% original

Offline WT8095

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Dave Z.
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2016, 08:29:01 AM »
Per the '79 Mustang sales brochure, the options were:

2.3L I4 non-turbo
2.8L V6
5.0L V8
2.3L I4 turbo
Dave Z.

'68 fastback, S-code + C6. Special Paint (Rainbow promotion), DSO 710784. Actual build date 2/7/1968, San Jose.
'69 Cougar convertible, 351W-2V + FMX, Meadowlark Yellow.

Offline 67gtasanjose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2831
  • "Take the MUSTANG PLEDGE"
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2016, 08:45:52 AM »
Personally, I liked the 2.3 turbo over the V-8 & V-6 options (horse-power wise) offered in the early Fox cars. I liked the (4-eye Fox) car enough but the stock V-8 performance was lacking...A LOT! I had been thinking about buying a V-8 '79 in about '83...then I drove it  :-\...then they came out with the 255??? WOW! I drove one of those too that had been traded in at the Buick dealership I worked at on a new Grand National in 1986, glad they got away from that engine quickly!
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 08:50:08 AM by 67gtasanjose »
Richard Urch

1967 (11/2/66, S.J.) Luxury Coupe, 289-4V w/Thermactor Emissions, C-4, Well Optioned
2005 (04/05) GT Premium Convertible, Windveil Blue, Parchment Top w/Med. Parchment interior,  Roush Body Appointments

Offline FoxChassis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2016, 12:31:17 PM »
Quote from: 67gta289
Pretty sure it was 302 in 1979, then 255 in 1980 and 1981, then back to 302 in 1982.
Quote from: BobV
That's what I have as well, although there were SOME 255's used in 82.
255 was available in 1982 only with an auto (Ford C5)
302 was available in 1982 only with a manual (Tremec SROD)

Offline FoxChassis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Easy 79 Question
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2016, 12:32:26 PM »
Quote from: WT8095
Per the '79 Mustang sales brochure, the options were:
2.3L I4 non-turbo
2.8L V6
5.0L V8
2.3L I4 turbo

Also a 3.3L I6 introduced after model year started.