The Mustang has a special place in the heart of America’s car culture. We all have a Mustang story, and it usually goes like this: “My [insert family member or friend] had a Mustang, and [insert fun memory].” The Mustang can accommodate a four-person family on an unforgettable trip across the country, or it can be used to merely run errands. What kid doesn’t want to go to school in a Mustang?

America’s Blue-Collar Performance Car

Anecdotes are common because the Mustang’s price is within reach for most American buyers. As a result, millions of Mustangs are in American driveways. Mustang ownership is accessible to both the blue-collar employee and the boss.

The Mustang’s affordability makes it an unpretentious option for those who enjoy driving. From the moment the Mustang rolled into the 1964 World’s Fair, Ford marketed the Mustang as a youthful alternative to contemporary ho-hum transportation. That included promoting the Mustang’s sporty nature through aftermarket performance parts. From 1964 to today, Ford has offered performance upgrades so that owners can get the performance they desire along with the satisfaction of installing the parts themselves.

The 2011–2014 Mustang carries on this tradition as a competent, capable platform upon which enthusiasts can build the performance car of their dreams and make memories for themselves and their families.

Bucking the Trend

In the decade following World War II, American manufacturing switched from churning out fighting machines to churning out consumer products. Meanwhile, returning soldiers’ families churned out babies.

---

This Tech Tip is From the Full Book, FORD MUSTANG 2011–14: HOW TO BUILD & MODIFY. For a comprehensive guide on this entire subject you can visit this link:

LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS BOOK HERE

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Please feel free to share this post on Facebook Groups or Forums/Blogs you read. You can use the social sharing buttons to the left, or copy and paste the website link: https://www.diyford.com/history-evolutio…197-ford-mustang//strong>

---

In 1960, an engineer-turned-marketing genius named Lee Iacocca sniffed a coming opportunity: the surge of babies that clogged maternity wards in the late 1940s and 1950s were primed to make their mark on the world, rebel against their conservative parents, and buy a car. Iacocca, forever the salesman, wanted to pounce.

Small product glimmers, such as GM’s Corvair, hinted that customers yearned for smaller high-performance cars, and Iacocca knew it. He wanted Ford to build a hip, sporty car that would capture the imagination of these new buyers—and loosen the grip on their wallets.

However, Iacocca had a problem: Robert McNamara. McNamara came to Ford as 1 of 10 financial Whiz Kids (veterans of the US Army Air Forces management science operation called Statistical Control) that Henry Ford II hired to run his grandfather’s company in 1946.

It didn’t take the Whiz Kids long to realize that statistical control didn’t square with performance. That is, unless performance was of the financial kind. In wartime and in business, McNamara’s specialty was minimizing risks. The development of an entirely new, youth-oriented product with a Zeppelin-sized marketing budget was the antithesis of McNamara’s business philosophy.

Getting McNamara to accept Iacocca’s plan would be impossible. That is, until a young man from Massachusetts named John F. Kennedy was elected president of the United States and asked McNamara to be his Secretary of Defense in 1961. With McNamara out as Ford’s president, Iacocca was unleashed. Thirty-seven years old and full of ideas, Iacocca grabbed the controls of Ford Division and swung it into the 1960s. Once Henry Ford II (the Deuce) was on board, Ford Motor Company went from selling reliable appliances into the era of total performance. The linchpin of Ford’s Total Performance program was Iacocca’s new car: the Mustang.

The idea of the Mustang didn’t arrive like a bolt of lightning in the night. Instead, it was like a building storm—a brainstorm of ideas from a group that Iacocca convened during a weekly dinner at Dearborn’s Fairlane Inn. The Fairlane Committee commissioned a survey to determine what baby boomers wanted in a car. The committee learned that buyers overwhelmingly valued fun things (bucket seats and manual transmissions) over sensible things (expanded interior room and low operating costs).

The drafting rooms and prototype shops got busy. The two-seat Mustang I concept car was spawned, and it was subsequently scrapped because it didn’t have the mass appeal that Iacocca envisioned. Market trends pointed toward young buyers who were single and young families looking to add a second car. This meant that interiors that prioritized comfort for rear-seat passengers weren’t a priority. Then came the Mustang’s 2+2 concept, which wasn’t exactly a four-seater, but rather it was a two-seater with two smaller back seats.

Meanwhile, Iacocca knew that future customers were roaming high-school hallways and time was running out before these baby boomers began car shopping. Iacocca wanted them buying Mustangs. To accelerate development and lower cost, Ford engineers borrowed parts from the Fairlane and Falcon. A focus group of couples from varying tax brackets was chosen to gauge their reaction to the Mustang prototype. Everyone was impressed with the long-hood, short-deck design of the new pony car. The low retail price sealed the deal.

Such was the reaction of the general public when the Mustang officially debuted at the World’s Fair in New York on April 17, 1964. A highly coordinated promotional campaign ensured the success of the Mustang. Thirty million people saw the Mustang unveiled the night before when Ford bought the 9 p.m. time slot on all three major TV networks.

Over the next two days, four million people flooded dealerships to see thousands of Mustangs that were already staged in dealerships across the country. Perhaps the campaign worked too well. According to legend, one dealership was forced to lock its doors to control the mobs of people that were hoping to see the new Mustang. In Garland, Texas, one eager buyer slept in his Mustang while his check cleared to ensure that no one bought the car out from under him—literally.

Iacocca and his team made sure that Ford marketed the Mustang to as many potential buyers as possible. Advertising from the period shows the wide net that Ford’s advertising agency cast. Targeted advertising to both women and men of all tastes and budgets ensured that there was a Mustang for every buyer.

Prices for 1965 Mustangs ranged as widely as the options list: the figure nearly doubled from a hardtop’s base price of $2,427 to $4,547 for a Shelby GT350 model. This ensured that there was a Mustang for every buyer—from the secretary with a trunk full of groceries to the corporate executive with a helmet and gloves ready for the weekend. Customization was the key to the Mustang’s success, and a wide array of engine options, from the economical 170-ci 6-cylinder to the lumpy-idling 289 Hi-Po, ensured that the Mustang’s power characteristics fit the person behind the wheel.

As buyer’s tastes changed, so did the Mustang. The year 1967 brought market competition in the form of Chevrolet’s Camaro and Pontiac’s Firebird. The F-Body twins’ big-block engine offerings gave the Mustang a run for its money, and the horsepower wars raged. Ford’s FE-series 390- and 428-ci big-block engines were added to the Mustang’s powertrain lineup.

By 1969, the trim, lightweight Mustang was restyled into a musclebound street brawler. The Sports Car Club of America’s (SCCA) Trans-Am series spurred Detroit’s Big Three (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) to offer special models with high-strung 5.0-liter engines to homologate their racing efforts. The Mustang Boss 302, Camaro Z28, Plymouth AAR ’Cuda, and Dodge Challenger T/A joined their big-block brethren in showrooms across the country.

The 1970s brought an even larger Mustang, one that felt the influence of former GM executive Semon “Bunkie” Knudsen, who joined Ford as president in 1968. As smog began filling urban areas, federal emissions standards crashed the horsepower party in Detroit. Sales began to slide and October, and 1973’s oil crisis drove the nail in the coffin for the thirsty Mustang.

As buyers felt the horsepower party hangover, Iacocca knew that the Mustang needed to remain customer focused to survive. Unhappy with how long the Mustang had spent at the feed trough, Iacocca returned the Mustang to its small-car roots. Timing couldn’t have been better, as the tidier, more economical 1974 Mustang II debuted in the fall of 1973, just as the oil crisis shocked American consumers out of their petroleum-drunk stupor.

With long lines at gas stations and manufacturers struggling to meet emissions standards, sticker and stripe decals atop hoods replaced the horsepower that once lurked underneath. However, buyers responded positively, as Ford sold well over a million copies of the Mustang II from 1974 through 1978.

As the 1970s drew to a close, the Mustang felt more market competition from Europe and Japan than from its neighbors in Detroit. Straitlaced and sensible, the Fox Body Mustang again reflected the taste of American buyers. The side scoops and sideburns of the 1970s were replaced by sharply creased body panels and pleats on the C-pillars that matched those on buyers’ trousers. Although the fresh styling and updated build quality enthused buyers, performance remained anemic.

However, the advent of electronic fuel injection and ceramic monolith catalytic converters allowed Ford to greatly improve performance while meeting the ever-stricter emissions standards. While it was a far cry from the horsepower heyday of the 1960s, the Mustang retained its conventional front-engine, rear-drive layout, and enthusiasts turned to the aftermarket to cure the boredom under the hood.

The Mustang remained popular with consumers through the early-to-mid 1980s, although buyers’ eyes were clearly wandering elsewhere. Just as the Fox Body Mustang was hitting its stride, Ford product planners knew that the Mustang was one of the remaining rear-drive holdouts in dealership lots, where front-wheel-drive people-movers were torque-steering off lots at an alarming pace. Plans were underway to rebadge a Japanese-designed car as the next Mustang.

Throughout its history, the Mustang survived by being responsive to consumer trends, but moving to a Japanese-designed front-wheel-drive platform was a bridge too far for enthusiasts. Once the public got a whiff of Ford’s plans, the mailroom in Dearborn was flooded with angry letters from consumers.

Even though “M U S T A N G” text was already molded across the face of the imposter’s prototype bumpers, an internal revolt within Ford forced the company to reverse course, and the Fox Body platform continued as the facelifted 1987 Mustang. It was a close shave for America’s pony car.

The almost-was Mustang debuted one year later as the Ford Probe.

In 1991, Congress passed the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which required all cars and light trucks sold in the United States to have airbags on the driver’s side and passenger’s side. Ford realized it would need to redesign the Mustang to meet this new requirement. Besides, the Fox platform had endured for 12 years. It was very long in the tooth.

The challenging financial landscape in the early 1990s meant that Ford considered canceling the Mustang instead of committing huge sums of money to develop a new platform. Many inside Ford resisted this idea, and a small group dedicated to the Mustang formed a skunkworks team to develop an alternate plan. Working after hours, the team hammered out a path forward that not only saved the Mustang but also saved a significant amount of money over the traditional development process. The result was the FOX-4, or SN-95, chassis. The carryover of some major mechanical and body components classified it as a continuation of the Fox platform, but consumers saw it as a completely new car.

The SN-95 continued the Fox architecture for an astonishing 10 more years. During that time, the Mustang saw the departure of the original Ford small-block V-8, the introduction of Ford’s overhead-camshaft Modular engine family, and the Mustang’s first use of independent rear suspension (IRS). The latter’s popularity (or lack thereof with drag racers) greatly influenced future Mustang development.

Fifth-Generation Mustang: The S197 Platform

The dawn of a new millennium saw the demise of the Mustang’s remaining crosstown nemesis, when the last Camaro rolled off its Canadian assembly line in 2002. By this time, Ford had learned its lesson and was committed to continuing the Mustang, but its chassis didn’t meet contemporary consumer expectations or safety standards. An entirely new chassis was needed.

Ford knew that the retro styling cues of the 1994 Mustang were popular with buyers, so they were used on the new car.

Fresh from working on the Ford/Jaguar DEW98 rear-drive chassis platform came Chief Engineer Hau Thai-Tang, who set the goals for the car: 1) make it fun, fast, and affordable for the average person; 2) draw on the Mustang’s popular past and mix it with good power, state-of-the-art safety, and modern levels of noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH); 3) create a shape that is unmistakably a Mustang.

---

This Tech Tip is From the Full Book, FORD MUSTANG 2011–14: HOW TO BUILD & MODIFY. For a comprehensive guide on this entire subject you can visit this link:

LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS BOOK HERE

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Please feel free to share this post on Facebook Groups or Forums/Blogs you read. You can use the social sharing buttons to the left, or copy and paste the website link: https://www.diyford.com/history-evolutio…197-ford-mustang//strong>

---

The result equally drew in Mustang loyalists as well as casual observers who maybe hadn’t considered a Mustang for a while. Maybe the retro styling rekindled a childhood memory or snatched a younger buyer’s attention at a stoplight.

For the average buyer, the S197 chassis addressed many gripes about the previous generation. Chassis refinement, interior space, build quality, ergonomics, interior materials and styling, chassis dynamics, and structural-rigidity improvements all contributed to the success of the S197 chassis.

Racing enthusiasts lamented that the 2005–2014 Mustang was heavier than its predecessors but reasoned that the improvements in handling, NVH, and power were worth the extra heft.

Since the S197 chassis began life as an offshoot of Ford’s DEW98 platform, the biggest head-scratcher for some was ditching the DEW98’s IRS for a solid axle. Reasons for the decision vary and include cost, complexity, weight, durability, performance, and perception. Enthusiasts recall that the 1999–2004 Mustang Cobra’s IRS wasn’t a resounding success. The Mustang’s first IRS was highly anticipated, but the results (particularly at the drag strip) were mixed. Perhaps that fed into Ford’s decision to go back to a tried-and-true solid rear axle for the S197 Mustang.

Coyote Engine: From Pipe Dream to Production

The new-for-2005 Mustang was a styling and sales home run. With the Chevrolet Camaro out of production since 2002, the Mustang had the American pony car segment all to itself. With solid sales figures, a broad market appeal, and no cross-town competition, the Mustang had become fat and happy. While the S197 chassis was superior to the outgoing SN-95 platform in countless ways, it was also heavier. Combined with the Mustang GT’s 300-hp, 4.6L V-8 engine, performance was . . . adequate. Things were stirring at GM and Chrysler that would spur Ford to not rest on its laurels.

Inside Ford Motor Company, the 4.6L 3-valve-per-cylinder engine wasn’t universally loved, either. While most recognized that the new 3-valve architecture worked well for the 5.4L in the F-150, it would rapidly become outdated for sports car applications. When contemporary V-6 engines were producing comparable performance, the 4.6L 3-valve V-8 engine’s 300 hp was a disappointment. Billed as offering “4-valve performance at a 2-valve cost,” the 3-valve underachieved. It was as expensive to produce as a 4-valve engine but offered performance achievable from a 2-valve design.

With Chevrolet’s reintroduced Camaro hitting dealerships two years later, Ford knew it had a horsepower problem. GM’s 6.2L LS3 and Dodge’s new 6.1L Hemi had a clear displacement advantage. The initial solution was to give the Mustang GT a new 6.2L that was under development for pickup applications. With packaging concerns aside, the 6.2L’s 35-percent displacement increase would have yielded the horsepower figures for the Mustang GT to remain competitive, but the 6.2L engine never became a viable Mustang engine. The idea was shelved.

Besides new competition in Detroit, there were also changes coming from Washington, D.C. After remaining unchanged for more than two decades, the federal government increased corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards in 2011. With Ford’s car sales volumes largely displaced by pickups, the once-less-significant Mustang GT now had a notable impact on the car side of Ford’s CAFE calculations.

The bureaucracy of a 100-year-old, multinational company can discourage innovation, but the fundamentals of car-guy culture still thrived inside the cubicles at Ford. Frustrated with the company’s conservative powertrain development, a small group of engineers sketched out new 5.0L engine options. However, due to its lack of official program support, origination from unconventional channels, and disinterest from mid-level management, the new 5.0 was relegated to after-hours virtual development by enthusiasts who longed for more muscle under a future Mustang’s hood.

Then in 2006, Ford cut jobs and offered buyouts to tens of thousands of its employees as part of a massive restructuring plan. On the eve of the Great Recession, the move arguably saved Ford Motor Company from bankruptcy. The buyouts purged scores of Ford employees who were close to retirement—employees who had decades of institutional knowledge and in some cases decades of traditional thinking. The result was a generational change within Ford that cleared the way for questioning deeply entrenched design standards and practices.

The new market competition, CAFE standards, and generational employee shift was a perfect storm of conditions in which this new 5.0L engine could take root.

Still reeling from the changes within the company, Ford continued the development of the Mustang’s planned update for 2011. With the 6.2L deemed too thirsty to meet upcoming CAFE standards, Ford needed a different engine. While watercooler conversations involved turbocharged inline 4-cylinder engines and V-6s, everyone understood that the Mustang GT should always have a V-8. Talk of the skunkworks 5.0L engine that a small group of engineers had penned spread within the engineering ranks at Ford

Informal conversations quickly morphed into formal presentations, and a week later, the new 5.0L Coyote engine was in Ford’s official Mustang cycle plan. As history shows, 5.0L engines also ended up under the hood of F-150 trucks.

Much of the team’s effort went into the cylinder heads. A key factor was the size of the hydraulic lash adjuster. The Modular engine family’s large lash adjuster limited the height of the intake runner. Use of such a tall lash adjuster was one of the traditional standards with which the Coyote engine crew disagreed.

The approval to use a shorter lash adjuster yielded a cascade of changes that dramatically benefited engine performance. The shorter lash adjuster allowed the intake port to be raised, which gave the intake charge a straighter shot around the valve. The higher, 193-cc intake port spread the intake manifold runners wider across the vee, which increased the turn radius of the intake-manifold runners. The wider spread between the intake runners also increased the volume for the intake plenum. All of these seemingly m i n o r changes dramatically increased the volumetric efficiency and power.

The engine also featured twin independent variable camshaft timing (dubbed Ti-VCT) on both the intake and exhaust cams. Not only did this innovation allow the 5.0L engine to maximize power, fuel economy, and minimize emissions but the system also harnessed torque from the camshafts for operation. Rather than use oil pressure to force the cams to advance or retard, the Ti-VCT system rerouted reserve oil from chambers at the precise time in a cam’s rotation to allow the camshaft to advance or retard from the resulting forces acting on the cam from the valve actuation. Since the engine’s oil pump wasn’t doubling as a hydraulic pump to move the cams, the Coyote’s oil pump used less power than the 4.6L 3-valve unit. There were a few reasons that engineers settled on 5 liters of displacement. To save on the manufacturing cost, the Coyote needed to utilize existing production equipment set to the Modular engine family’s 100-mm bore spacing and 227-mm deck height. Engineers felt that the Coyote’s 92.2-mm bore and 92.7-mm stroke were the practical limits within the Modular engine’s architecture. The nearly square bore to stroke ratio yielded 4,951 cc, which rounded up is 5 liters. Besides, given the Mustang’s heritage, “5.0” had a nice ring to it.

In the end, the Coyote engine was rated at 412 hp and 390 ft-lbs of torque from a relatively small 5 liters of displacement. The redesigned-for-2011 Mustang GT arrived in showrooms more than ready to take on the competition from Dodge and Chevrolet.

How did the “Coyote” code name come about? A V-8 engine planner won an informal engine-naming contest by referring back to Ford’s first 32-valve V-8 from the early 1960s: the Coyote Indy V-8. It was attractive to draw upon Ford’s rich racing heritage for this engine, and the name stuck.

Buying and Modifying an S197 Coyote

A 2011 to 2014 Mustang (especially the GT) is an excellent platform for performance modifications, even if it’s your first project car. It’s relatively practical, economical, and powerful straight off the showroom floor. For performance enthusiasts, numerous factors work in the S197 Mustang’s favor:

• 2011–2014 Mustangs are old enough to have depreciated considerably, but they are new enough that most collision repairs were reported and repaired while insured. This means that major body damage will show up on a vehicle history report. As vehicles age, bodywork is more commonly paid out of pocket and can only be found by in-person inspection.
• S197 Mustangs are plentiful, so it’s not difficult to find unmolested examples in good condition. As cars exit their warranty period, many buyers move to newer vehicles, which leaves the last generation of Mustangs numerous and affordable for budget-minded enthusiasts to purchase.
• Durability is proven. Don’t be afraid of cars with more than 100,000 miles. If maintained well, these cars have a lot of life left to enjoy.
• Ford used better materials and methods that resist corrosion and chassis fatigue than earlier generations. This makes 2011–2014 Mustangs a sound purchasing decision even in the rust belt.
• Modern fluid couplings and captured fasteners make disassembling and reassembling the S197 Mustang extremely straightforward. The larger chassis offers considerably more working room than previous (and later) generations, which greatly reduces frustration and busted knuckles. The chassis and component layouts are logical, conventional, and simple. Dare we say that working on a 2011–2014 Mustang is a pleasure.
• Modifying a Coyote-powered 5.0L car is especially rewarding because the powertrain responds well to modifications. The Mustang’s popularity with enthusiasts means the aftermarket is awash with well-developed, proven components. There’s no need to embark on your own research and development program; reputable companies already know what works and what doesn’t. The paths to performance are well-beaten and clearly marked.

2011 Mustang Engine Options

Type	3.7L V-6	5.0L V-8
Block	Aluminum, cast-iron liners, six-bolt main caps	Aluminum, pressed-in iron liners, six-bolt main caps
Displacement	3,726 cc (227.4 ci)	4,951 cc (302.1 ci)
Bore x Stroke	95.5 mm (3.76 inches) x 86.7 mm (3.41 inches)	92.2 mm (3.63 inches) x 92.7 mm (3.65 inches)
Bore Spacing	100 mm	100 mm
Crankshaft	Forged 4130 steel, cross-plane	Forged steel, cross-plane
Connecting Rods	Powdered forged steel	Powdered forged steel (150.7-mm length)
Pistons	Cast aluminum	Cast aluminum
Compression	10.5:1	11.0:1
Cylinder Heads	Aluminum, 4 valves per cylinder	Aluminum, 4 valves per cylinder
Valvetrain	Dual overhead cam (DOHC), twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT), direct acting mechanical bucket (DAMB) lifters	Dual overhead cam (DOHC), twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT), roller finger follower and hydraulic lash adjuster
Valve Diameter	Intake: 37.0 mm; Exhaust: 31.0 mm	Intake: 37.0 mm; Exhaust: 31.0 mm
Valve Lift	Intake: 10.0 mm; Exhaust: 97.0 mm	Intake: 12.0 mm; Exhaust 12.0 mm
Throttle Body Diameter	68 mm	80 mm
Fuel Delivery	Sequential multi-port fuel injection	Sequential multi-port fuel injection
Ignition	Coil on plug	Coil on plug
Firing Order	1-4-2-5-3-6	1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2
Horsepower	305 hp (227 kW) at 6,500 rpm	2011–2012: 412 hp (307 kW) at 6,500 rpm; 2013–2014: 420 hp (313 kW) at 6,500 rpm
Torque	280 ft-lbs (380 N m) at 4,250 rpm	390 ft-lbs (529 N m) at 4,250 rpm
Maximum RPM	7,000	7,000
Minimum Fuel Octane	87	87
Oil capacity	6 quarts with filter	8 quarts with filter

Written by Wes Duenkel and Posted with Permission of CarTechBooks

LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS BOOK!