Turns out the Mustang SVO Won after All
The world got a little smaller on September 30, 1980, when the Ford Motor Company announced a new organization that consolidated independent operations into a singular concept, one that mirrored Ford’s long lost Total Performance era. This group signaled a rebirth of performance excellence for a storied automaker, and became another nail in the Malaise Era‘s coffin.
As David LaRocque wrote in MUSTANG SVO – The Machine Speaks for Itself, this group was the vision of journalist-turned-executive Walter Hayes. His idea had three components to consolidation: To put Ford back in various forms of motorsport, to create a catalogue of speed parts for enthusiasts, and to develop limited production vehicles that embody their passion for Total Performance.
This group earned a formal, MBA-grade name with a catchy acronym: Special Vehicle Operations, or SVO for short. Hayes aimed to elevate the Ford brand by leveraging ideas and assets already in use within the Blue Oval. We learn in MUSTANG SVO – The Machine Speaks for Itself that the “basic premise was to make this organization fiscally responsible.” The culmination of this mantra manifested in the only Ford vehicle to wear the group’s name on its flanks: The 1984-86 Ford Mustang SVO. While a bit compromised in concept and a slow mover in the showroom, prices show this oddball pony car to be quite desirable, after all. Even more so than much of its home-grown and foreign competition.
While the machine may have spoken for itself in promotional material, the story told is one of adhering to SVO’s mission of “fiscal responsibility” via parts bin upgrades and extensive refinements. Starting with Ford’s famous Fox platform, engineers improved the Mustang’s suspension with the 1982 Lincoln Continental’s long travel, cast iron front wishbones, six precise dampers from Koni (including two axle dampers), and surprisingly large 16 x 7″ alloy wheels. The prodigious disc brakes were lifted from said Lincoln, while the differential received a limited-slip and a quicker 3.45:1 axle ratio.
The powertrain was heavily based on the 1983 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, but added an intercooler fed by an offset scoop on the SVO’s unique hood. The improvements generated 175 horsepower and 210 lb-ft of torque, a full 20 horsepower more than the aforementioned Thunderbird. A Hurst shifter topped the Borg-Warner T-5 transmission, with a leather-wrapped knob for a touch of luxury.
Higher end trimmings worthy of a world class performance car dotted the Mustang SVO’s carryover interior. The upgrades included heavily bolstered bucket seats with manually inflatable lumbar support via squeezable air pump. A three spoke steering wheel was leather wrapped and embossed with the SVO logo. A unique gauge cluster included a turbo boost gauge, 8000 rpm tachometer, and 140-mph “specially incremented” speedometer with empty hash marks above the federally mandated 85-mph limit.
External enhancements included unique bumpers, signal lights, aerodynamic spats ahead of the rear axle, pinstriped rear taillights, bi-plane rear spoiler (from the Ford Probe III concept) and the aforementioned scoop-infused hood. The SVO was the only Mustang of the “four eye” generation (1979-86) to wear a pair of conventional headlights, but even that was further differentiated during production. It’s clear that Special Vehicle Operations was doing everything possible to improve on a budget, offering more than what’s expected from a Mustang of the era.
Ford built a modest 4508 Mustang SVOs in its freshman year, partly due to a $15,585 price tag that was roughly $6000 more than a V-8 Mustang. But the air was ripe with potential, with performance impressive enough for Car and Driver magazine to suggest the SVO was “Ford’s Porsche 930 Turbo, an old design that’s kept vital with large doses of technology administered by dedicated engineer/racers.”
The next year of SVO production included a robust bump to 205 horsepower, thanks to items like a revised turbocharger, higher flowing fuel injectors, and a Mustang GT-like dual exhaust. Flush-mounted headlights similar to those on the 1984 Continental Mark VII were also implemented, but a disappointing 1954 SVOs were sold in 1985, and only 3382 shifted hands in 1986. The Mustang SVO died an unceremonious death, indirectly replaced by another fiscally responsible SVO creation, the well regarded 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe.
Perhaps the Mustang SVO lacked the snob appeal of the European and Japanese competition it sought to challenge. Maybe the stick axle rear suspension and Ford Fairmont derived dashboard justified those downplays by the American consumer, as the need for unique/upscale accoutrements can’t be understated at such a lofty price point. The flip side of that coin was that the SVO was too expensive and slow in a straight line, relative to that of a Mustang GT.
But time heals all wounds, as now the Mustang SVO is reaching parity with its V-8 powered sister ships of the “four-eyed” Mustang generation. To wit, a 1985 SVO in #2 condition is worth the same $34,800 as a 1985 Mustang 5.0 notchback, and only $2,000-$5,000 cheaper than GT hatchbacks and convertibles of the same era. (Seasoned Mustang racers may scoff, but right now the numbers favor neither the track tuned SVO, nor the drag race ready Mustang LX ‘notch.)
Only the 1979 Mustang Indy Pace Car ($63,400) and 1984-86 Saleen Mustangs ($100,000+) are more valuable four-eyed fodder. But that’s only part of the story, as SVO engineers aimed this vehicle to sporty, premium priced imports of the day. So how does a 1985 Mustang SVO in #2 condition ($34,800) stack up against its intended competition from Europe and Japan?
These days a 1985 BMW 325e (the 325i came in 1987) in the same condition is only worth $22,800, or $12 grand less than our Mustang SVO. The BMW still trounces on the Audi GT coupe of the same year, as it’s “only” worth $19,700. The Nissan 300ZX is a mixed bag, as the naturally aspirated model is $16,500 but skyrockets to $41,900 for a turbocharged example. That makes the naturally aspirated 1985 Toyota Supra (turbocharging in 1987) somewhat of a standout, at $33,300 for all that Toyota quality.
A valiant effort, but the 1985 Mustang SVO spanks every intender aside from the turbocharged Z-car. Perhaps that isn’t a surprise, as only the boosted Nissan has enough horsepower to run with the Foxy Ford.
This story should not leave a bittersweet taste in the reader’s mouth, as Hagerty’s valuation data suggests Walter Hayes and his crew had the last laugh. Their hard work may not have paid dividends at SVO headquarters, but automotive history collectively thanks them all for the hard work, sleepless nights, and brilliant cost controls that brought the 1984-86 Mustang SVO to production.
Their turbocharged pony car was admittedly a bit rough around the edges relative to many imports in its class, but the collector car market knows what it likes: a rare Fox Body Mustang with turbo boost, Koni shocks, and an eye catching bi-plane spoiler. Congratulations to those gentlemen behind this machine, because you succeeded in the end.
***
Check out the Hagerty Media homepage so you don’t miss a single story, or better yet, bookmark it. To get our best stories delivered right to your inbox, subscribe to our newsletters.
This car was considered a joke back in the day. Te higher cost and lack of 4 cylinders liked it. Ford would have hit a home run with a more powerful V8.
The only reason the value is up as there are so few left and it is hard to restore. Failure often leads to value. The Dodge Daytona was a failure when sold but rarity is what drives price.
I alway liked this car and did find someone who transplanted a 5.0 in one. It would have sold.
To be fair, 2.73 geared GT’s were not fast. An 86 SVO or an 87 Daytona is faster. Now, with the 3.08 optioned gears the Mustang GT really came alive and was very fast. With respect, since we are talking back in the day. I have a Shelby GLHS which was great fun in the 80s.
The GLHS is still great fun I would guess. Legend has it that the acronym is Goes Like Hell-S**T, the last of which is what I uttered when I encountered the full-throttle “right turn only” torque steer.
I hadn’t heard that one before! I think because it was my first fast car and I hadn’t ever driven a fast rear wheel drive that I never gave it a thought back then. That said it is noticeable to me now at 270 whp and Quaife limited slip. I’m also keenly aware of turbo lag. I have a 2002 Camaro without torque steer or turbo lag 🙂
@hyperv6 I think the people who thought it was a joke were the ones who didn’t know what it really was. I’ve seen these, stock for stock, surprise a lot of GT’s. Done it myself! Admittedly, it was the weight advantage and the handling. And yeah, on the strip you’d better get the holeshot because a GT will run you down on the big end, but rarely on a track. Especially a technical track.
And no, they didn’t make that glorious noise. But they were fun and technical and a bit more economical.
And while there has always been a robust aftermarket for the GT’s, these were much harder to mod for power. They just didn’t have the numbers for most tuners to make the investment. So it became an expensive proposition and thus a rarity.
Some of the “joke” comes from the utter lack of refinement of the turbo motor. Coarse and peaky, with lots of lag, it was not the stuff of most American’s dreams.
I remember going to the Ford dealer when these were brand new. I was just about out of high school, and wanted to see one of the SVO Mustangs. I had no chance of buying one, but took one out for a test drive. It actually underwhelmed me with both the sound, and the performance. The LX and GT were the rage back then, and the four cylinder turbo just didn’t seem to measure up in comparison. It did have style points in regard to its appearance both inside and out. They were rare to see then, and even more so now, this was a nice reminder of back then.
My dad bought a T-Bird Turbo Coupe over this. Mainly because it was roomier. I’m sure price played a role as well.
I’ve only seen a handful of these out at various car events and I’ve been a Mustang guy since ’06. I do like how the new Ecoboost Mustang guys are tapping into the SVO name. Smart I think.
I went to the Ford dealer with cash in hand. Drove both the carbureted GT, and the SVO. Loved the SVO chassis, hated the engine. Loved the V8, but the rest of the GT was all thumbs.
Bought the SVO, but from another dealer that had one in stock with a proper 4 shock rear end, and a good discount.
The end result was that the SVO had problems with both parts, and tuning. The turbo failed after two months, was replaced with a water cooled unit under warranty. Then the fuel line broke, and we waited two months for a replacement. The engine had problems coming off throttle (it would not, cleanly). Then, there was the vibration, and the sound… After a year, and two months of the car being in service for various problems, I traded it for the new Supra.
While I loved the nicely balanced, slightly oversteering chassis, accurate steering and the seats, the rest of the car was useless. The later version was somewhat improved, but not much.
I eventually purchased a Saleen notchback in ’90, kept it for 16 years. it recently sold on BaT for an astounding $78,000! This is especially interesting as it had over 130K miles. There was a special story behind the car, and lots of good documentation, all part of my original stewardship, but still… $78K for what was essentially a clapped out cop car (admittedly purchased new). It was properly preserved by its two other owners. Anyway, my point is that it outpaced any two SVOs, so there is that…
While time has often made me nostalgic for some of my cars that were sold on (like my 911 SC), I have no such feelings for the SVO (or the Porsche 951 that stayed in the family since new). Good riddance. The 90 Saleen notchback… Loved it, wouldn’t mind having it back. But not for the better part of $80K…
Bought my SVO brand new in 86. Still have it, 34k miles. It’s always been a car that gets no respect. It wasn’t meant to be a straight line car, it was meant to be more of a touring car. What also held it back there were articles on Car and Driver and others that SVO wanted 3 things installed in 86. A 4 valve head (hp would have been about 240) anti lock brakes, and an independent rear end. They got none of that. I guess Ford new they were going to kill it
When my commuter car got t-boned in Long Beach, CA, I was in the market for a mustang in 1985. Did not really consider the SVO for a variety of reasons. One was price – the GT Hatchback was only $12.3K loaded. That made it the best $ per HP (215) of all the American cars. Also, the SVO models were difficult to find, even in So Cal. I finally found one in the color I wanted – Regatta Blue – at Tustin Ford. Done.
I liked some of the styling changes of the SVO vs. the GT, the wheels, 4-wheel discs, Recaro seats, and performance handling. Turn offs were the wierd headlites, the banana spoiler, and the turbo. Turbo = Trouble. Turns out, the 2-row radiators could not handle the heat well – probably an engineering shortfall.
Still have the GT, and have had some issues. The T-5 trannies give out around 80K miles. Replaced it with a JEGS catalog World Class T-5 in 2005. Replaced alternator once, water pump – 3 so far, PS pump – 3 so far, struts all around. Original carb (rebuilt twice) and original starter, original brake rotors! 151K miles – I don’t drive it as much as I should, but it gets run 15 or 20 min. at least every other week. It’s a keeper.
The Mustang GT signaled the end to the malaise era for most blue oval fans. The SVO on the other hand was more a connoisseurs item. One I especially like. Along with a power bump the emphasis was put on handling and braking as well. With Ford appointing Kranefuss head of (then) SVO this comes as no surprise. Using the lighter turbo four cylinder decreased front weight , sitting behind the front axle another advantage. Combined with suspension upgrades, quicker steering etc it was a more nibble pony. Along with the upgrade to 205 horses the rear went from a 3:45 to a 3:73 as well which nicely improved performance. Rarely to do I see car that I don’t think – I’d have done this differently or…The SVO Mustang is a rare exception. The styling is spot on,there’s nothing unnecessary Even using a simplified vent behind the c pillar , a change that is largely unnoticed , ads by subtraction. So while there’s maybe a little something of a European flair, it isn’t pushy. The clean simple rims for example are just right at a time when second rate BBS mesh knock offs were being used by many. The biplane rear spoiler is functional, subtle yet unforgettable. And on a nice twisty road …about the only thing many saw of the SVO.
Sadly too many miss the point of the SVO, the Turbo T Bird or my personal favorite the forgotten Mustang GT Turbo. Ford was hoping to use its european sports car knowledge to attempt to bring more efficient power to Americans cars. These cars were Fords first computer controlled manifold fuel injection engines . 3 years before they brought it to the V8. Whats more Ford had dabbled with a double overhead cammed version of the SVO 2.3 liter that produced as much power as its 5.0 liter. Sadly they decided against its production (for 30+ years). But it was Americans tastes of the 80’s that killed the Ford Turbo’s (and their prices). It wasnt until turbos had proven themselves to a younger generation in European snd Japanese cars that the Americans were able to resurrect their 2.3 turbo engines.
Buick didn’t seem to have any problems selling Americans turbocharged cars…..
Buick was making more power than some V8 engines at the time. They also were not $6K more.
This combo was much like the XLR Cadillac. A great car and such. But you could buy a cheaper faster version for much less.
This was a Euro idea but in an American market. I know it would have sold well in Europe as the engine combo was used in a number of cars. But here it is not the same world.
The Mustang was a value performance car. People here will go for more power at a lower price. Also that 6K more could buy a lot of 5.0 parts.
Engineers can do great things but is sold in the wrong market they can fail, Ford marketing had been selling a 4 cylinder Mustang as an entry level car and now they want you to believe it is the top level car? Customers were just not receptive.
It is another case where a good car was just not what the market wanted. I remember this time well. The Chevy guys laughed and the Mustang guys were just not interested.
This engine may have done better in a AWD SHO Taurus or an AWD Escort.
The regal wasn’t competing with itself.
Ford tried to sell small engine Euro thinking at a time where it was all about the V8. Once the V8 got fuel injection they got more compression. The more they cleaned the engines up the more power they made.
The Turbo 4 here was ok but the Turbo still needed better electronics and direct injection to really get it right.
My GM 2.0 in 08 got the DI and a specific block and head with the proper head gasket and it would run all day on pump gas st 23 psi boost making 300 hp. I drove it trouble free for 10 years.
Ford at this point did the RS engine but even then put the wrong gasket on and lost a number of engines till they pulled it from the states.
I’m glad to see the Mustang SVO getting some love in 2024, but how in the heck did you manage to write an entire article about Walter Hayes and SVO and the Mustang SVO without ever mentioning Michael Kranefuss even once? Obviously I am a bit biased but my father worked closely with Walter and he ran SVO during this period. He was instrumental in the car seeing the light of day, he and Walter fought the uphill political battle at Ford to put a small, powerful and fuel efficient turbocharged engine into a Mustang and then give it independent rear suspension. This was blasphemy back then and it took the vision and perseverance of Walter Hayes, Mike Kranefuss and all the engineers at SVO to make it a reality.
Happy belated 86th Birthday to your father.
Daniel, how about I write an article specific to your father? Nothing about Mustang SVO values and everything else I’ve balanced for this article, just him and the things he did at Ford. Email me at pistonslap@hagerty.com if you are interested.
The SVO was a great challenger to my 1986 Shelby GLHS on track. Without Konis and the weight in the front, the V8 had no chance if a braking zone and a corner was in the mix. 14.3@97 mph bone stock (best ever, crisp October evening in Epping, NH) the Shelby did well at the drag strip too. It was so limited that I understand why it really can’t be compared to mass produced cars. As soon as I was doing well on track in my car club, COMSCC, they kicked it out of SSGT and into a modified suspension, group ST1.
I always liked the Mustang SVO. Between the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and the Merkur XR4TI we had a few nice ways to find this engine setup. I have a soft spot for all of these turbocharged Ford’s from the 80’s.
Not one mention of the 83-84 Turbo GT’s or the 79-80 turbos. Not one tiny sentence. I love my 84 turbo and my 89 ASC McLaren. It might be good that they seem forgotten or unloved since the prices are still low in comparison to other foxes.
I owned one of those 79 Turbos. Based on my experience, I wouldn’t mention it either.
Daniel, we performance-minded enthusiasts are well aware of your father’s enormous contribution to Ford’s high-performance image and promotion of the automobile as more than just a transportation appliance. His contribution certainly warranted at least a mention by Mr. Mehta. If I’m not mistaken, your father is pictured in one of the images accompanying the story. Mr. Hayes may have been the executive in charge of Ford’s PR/Racing Programs, but for many of us your dad was The Man when it came to Ford performance.
Thanks Woodrow, I really appreciate the kind words and will relay to my father when we talk later today, we like to recap the F1 races together. Good eye, you are correct, he is in the SVO promo photo standing directly behind the hood scoop.
I’ll second Woodrow’s comments, Daniel. Your dad was a hero (still is) to many of us Ford Motorsport fans of a certain era. His contributions to the company’s success on the racetrack (and off) cannot be overstated.
Daniel – to be honest I did have to look your father up. Not by any means because I was unaware of him or his contributions but because when I was writing my post I was unsure of the last name spelling.
Sajeev – thanks for the info on the SVO book. I had no idea it even existed. I’m going to try and order a copy for myself although the process looks fairly byzantine to me.
I always liked the SVOs myself – even though they didn’t make the glorious noises of the 5.0s. One of my bosses had one (an ’86) about 15 years ago and he let me take it for a drive. For whatever reason I found the footbox extremely tight and felt like I was going to hit the wrong pedal with my admittedly wide dress shoes I was wearing. I’d like to give it another try someday as it’s still on my list of dream ’80s/early 90s Ford cars to own.
If I recall, the SVO had a different pedal arrangement to facilitate heel-and-toe down-shifting.
It did. And this along with other suspension updates ended up trickling down to the 84 GT mid year as well. Im sure it was more cost effective tooling wise.
It was a forward-looking vehicle, and many performance variants of the last 15 years check off a lot of SVO boxes compared to an 85 GT. Boosted handling track car vs. straight-line muscle. Basically most modern special Camaros, Mustangs, etc. vs. a bunch of Dodge things. So that is how SVO won –in the sense that the concept has been duplicated repeatedly by others (even in Ford Explorers…)
I’ve never like the SVO front end, but also quite like 4-eyed foxes.
Price wise, I don’t really feel that proves much in the collector car market as popularity pushes things to higher values and good condition rarity does as well. There are a lot of fancy cars from the 60s and 70s you can’t make money doing a more serious restoration on vs. a basket case 69 Camaro that you can for example.
There are lots of better cars that are worth less money than others…
Great article but slightly off. The 1985 Mustang SVO engine/exterior was a carryover from 1984 until a late year (April 1985) mid-year upgrade (439 built) included engine changes yielding 205 Hp / 240 ft/lb, flush mount headlamps, duel exhaust… I waited until 2009 to get my SVO being an 85.5 Black 1C with leather. Bought it on the West coast, a friend and I drove it non-stop to the East coast, absolutely no issues and 28 mpg. Thank you SVO team!
I always loved the look of these, but never got on board with the turbo 4. For me, the fox body and the V8 are 2 pieces of a puzzle that just fit. Once the GT made its comeback in 82 and ended the malaise era, the main focus was on development of that car. It’s a shame they didn’t save the styling of the SVO and its rear disc brakes for the updated aero Mustang that came in 87. The SVO was much better looking.
A word of note on the price disparancy. The Mustang GT (1984) indeed was priced just under 10 grand compared to 16 grand for the SVO, but that was the base price of the GT. That car had no power options, no a/c, and no other creature comforts. If you equip the GT similar to the SVO, then that price difference was more around 3-4 grand.