Guess what? The Ford Mustang is typically considered to be a “boomer” product, but the age of this car itself indicates that as a person it would be a GenXer. That’s right; 1965 is the first full year of the Pony car, and it’s often cited as the beginning birth date of the Slacker generation as well.
I fall into this small and misunderstood age group, and as with any person from this demographic, I’ve known the Mustang my entire life. I came home from the hospital maternity ward in a 1965 convertible (totally unrestrained and likely to fly out the windshield if my dad had hit anything, of course). Hot Wheels versions of the later, bigger, and more muscular ones were played with on the bedroom floor. My first memory of the Testor’s model glue scent was at the kitchen table building a 1/24 scale model of a Mustang II (model glue fumes- so that explains things!). Probably the first car magazine I purchased was a Motor Trend to read about the new Fox body ‘Stangs. Even as late as college, we thought about pitching in with the letter-writing campaign to keep the front-drive Probe from becoming the next Pony car.
Like all of us human Xers, the Mustang grew and changed to keep pace with the times. In retrospect, many find certain models too large (the 1971-73 models) or too small (the Mustang II) but in-period they were typically just what the market called for.
Over time things started to change. The Mustang became like a GenXer that used to go to those record stores in the city to get import vinyl from their favorite British alternative bands – bands that are now on nostalgia tours. Sure, the Mustang kept up a bit and listened to Daft Punk and Chemical Brothers in the nineties, eventually playing some Black Keys and Kings Of Leon during the 2000s, but generally speaking he still preferred to crank up some disaffected guy from Manchester whining about hanging a DJ.
Not that the Mustang wasn’t still cool, but by 1987 the most advanced-looking and Euro-enthusiast-oriented of Ford’s coupes was not the pony car but instead a turbocharged version of the elegant “beak bird.” To think that only a decade earlier the Thunderbird name had been applied to a sort-of-laughable luxo barge and now it was kicking the Mustang’s ass in the aero-tech department.
The 2005 SN197 signaled the time when the Mustang stopped even trying to adapt to the latest interpretation of what a sports coupe should be and just went straight down the retro path. Naturally, it’s slowly been updated over the last twenty years to stay rather current, but pure forward thinking is not part of the game plan.
With my latest series, I’ve explored a world where that didn’t happen, starting with the Mustang II of 1974. What if Ford had expanded the model lineup during the seventies and then kept the car at the cutting edge of design and technology throughout the eighties? Now as the nineties dawn in our timeline, our alternate reality looks once again at making some of the advancements Ford already had available into another Mustang that would have been anything but nostalgic. Let’s make our way back to 1992; we’ll steer clear of the great hurricane of South Florida plus the riots of LA and head to Dearborn.
Outfoxing The Fox
As I’ve pointed out before, the decline of the Mustang as an up-to-the-minute design seems to have started when the Ford “aero revolution” of the eighties by and large passed it by. This sea-change or design at the Blue Oval had its roots in some proof-of-concept show cars built in the early part of the decade by Ford-owned Ghia or Turin. Named the “Probe” series in the years before such a title made you giggle, I’ve used these cars as inspiration for different generations of alternative-timeline, futuristic-looking, Fox-body Mustangs.
First, I took the Probe 1 and massaged it (boy, that sounded wrong) into the angular-but-aero 1979 alternate Fox body model:
Probe II and III were used to make the Ford Sierra (and Merkur XR4Ti), so the Probe IV came next as a basis for a new 1986 super-slick (and still Fox chassis) ‘Stang hatchback:
Arguably the most dramatic of the Probes was the final 1985 iteration of the series, the Probe V. Ford now seemed to decide that making the most aerodynamic car was too damn easy and looked for more difficult targets to meet and exceed. Exceed they did: the Probe V’s drag coefficient of 0.137 reportedly was the equal to an F-15 fighter jet, a vehicle that doesn’t even have wheels.
The Probe V was powered by a transverse mid-engine to keep the nose low; unlike the earlier Probe concepts this version went full-on whiz-bang show car with sliding side doors that wrapped over the roof, as well as a sliding canopy over the engine.
The earlier Probes translated to production coupes relatively easily, but this thing is almost more aircraft than car. If I’m going to convert this thing into a new-for-1992 Mustang it’ll be a bit of challenge, to say the least.
More Sally Ride Than “Ride, Sally, Ride”
Essentially what we have to do is look at the overall shape of the Probe V and try to stay as true to that as possible to this formed-in-a-wind-tunnel design as we make it into a real car. First, the Jetsons shit sadly has to go. The sliding doors, moving rear canopy with clear “Tatra” fin, all-glass roof, and skirts we removed from the earlier Probes will get discarded here as well. The tall, peaked roof will get lowered, and the complex windshield that goes nearly horizontal at its base will give way to more traditional glass and a grey/black cowl trim to simulate the look. The ultra-long tail that’s great for aero (but not so good for a Walgreens parking lot) needs to be trimmed slightly. But overall, if you overlaid the Probe V over this 1992 ProbeStang V, you’d have pretty much the same shape, including the sort of “Coke bottle” profile from the top. A very prominent lump on the hood to clear the V8 (or smaller engines) will be needed, but it adds some character. Naturally, we’ll never get to that 0.137 drag coefficient but it will be worlds apart from the standard Fox.
Ah, but this is more than just any car; we need to at least include some basic visual touchstones to be sure that there’s Mustang DNA in this super-aero coupe. The Probe V’s rear engine cooling inlets will work as vestigial Mustang “side scoops”, while body-colored trim and simulated vents on the “C” pillar pick up on the Mustang look (and differentiate it from fastback F-body Firebirds and Camaros). Composite lights always seem to lack personality, so the front of the ProbeStang V will feature clear-covered lights that still recall four-shot sealed beams; a chrome smoothed-out Mustang logo sits on the clear “grille” area. Note that like the earlier Probe IV Mustang I proposed, there’s an opening air intake in the lower bumper that can automatically allow more cooling when needed. The five-spoke wheels might still have optional flush covers in the Probe tradition, but I doubt many Mustang owners would care that much about the added drag reduction.
The Kamm tail of the Probe could remain nearly unchanged but for the ProbeStang; I’ve simply installed very Mustang-looking three-bar taillights and hidden backup lights in the lower grille. Of course, there would be a convertible version as well:
My wife saw the unaltered Probe V on my monitor screen and gasped “what the hell is that?” Indeed, like my earlier ProbeStangs, this Probe V version might stray a bit further from the aero ideal that hard-core streamliners might want, but as before we need to balance benefits with acceptance of the market. Those damn consumers.
Honestly, I was kind of surprised by the interior of the Probe V since it seemed like a bit of an angular letdown.
The cleanliness and linear form of the dash could be tweaked a bit to create something more usable for our ProbeStang. The very-1985 steering wheel controls will need to be pared down to allow space for the airbag, but the height-adjustable “pod” steering column can be retained with a central graphic tachometer and digital speedometer and gauges that move with the adjustable column. The Probe V’s gauges were entirely heads-up projections, but here the HUD is just a supplementary display.
Flanking the center gauge are four secondary displays that are designed to simulate the sport gauge package on a 1965-66 Mustang. The flip-down door in the dash center conceals the car schematic with aero and fault gauges; the back side of the lid contains suspension height, air intake, rear spoiler, and display adjustment controls (the HUD, digital/metric, and such). At night, or whenever you don’t want the distraction of this display, you can simply close the lid. A red light below the release button will illuminate to let you know if there’s a fault indicated on the stowed screen that needs your attention.
Now, if this were a Lancia I’d have gearshifts coming out of the ceiling and foot-operated power windows, but we need to stay pretty basic with the Mustang brand and I don’t mind keeping it uncluttered and businesslike.
The Ford Of The Future That Never Was
Pony cars were never really about the highest top speed, lowest wind noise, or the best gas mileage while top-gear cruising with the engine barely burbling over idle at 70. That doesn’t mean such benefits wouldn’t be welcome in our imagined early nineties Pony car, when gas prices still were a bit high after Desert Storm. As with my earlier attempts, the Probe shape could keep the Mustang state-of-the-art and offer those extra advantages over The General’s offerings.
Lower and even longer than Mustangs that came before, the ProbeStang V would be a worthy flagship for the Blue Oval, still lean and current instead of the equivalent of that uncle doing karaoke singing to Cure songs over in the corner. Not that I know anything about that kind of person.
How A Ford Probe-Based Ford Mustang Would Have Been The Ultimate Fox Body – The Autopian
The High Tech Ford Probe IV Concept Could Have Inspired A Futuristic “Fox” Mustang – The Autopian
“The 2005 SN197 signaled the time when the Mustang stopped even trying to adapt to the latest interpretation of what a sports coupe should be and just went straight down the retro path.”
Bit of a piss take on what at the time was the most sophisticated Mustang ever, finally cutting all Fox body ties and leveraging an advanced platform that Ford had developed for Lincoln and Jaguar.
And what else has “stopped even trying to adapt to the latest interpretation of what a sports coupe should be and just went straight down the retro path”? A little something called the Porsche 911.
In-fact, the Mustang and 911 are in some ways two of the most similar cars on the market.
Both almost died multiple times to 1980s retrofuturistic bullshit, but are still alive and well with highly advanced versions of the 1960s formula that gave birth to them.
I will say that where Ford could have applied some 1980s retrofuturistic bullshit, and maybe even brought back the Probe name, instead of trying to turn “Mustang” into a sub-brand, is with the Mustang Mach-E.
The bastardization of the Mustang name and styling for a five-door electric crossover is embarrassing, but as others from Hyundai to Rivian have shown 1980s retrofuturistic styling can work really well with that kind of vehicle. And there is even a rally version of the Mach-E, which would match much better with 1980s styling influences than 1960s styling influences.
Ford missed a big opportunity to apply the 1980s Probe styling exercises, and possibly even name, to the Mach-E.
And both are racing each other in WEC and IMSA.
I still miss my ’95 SE and ’96 GT, always wanted a GTS.
Terrible cars but I loved the look!
My ex’s MX-6 LS “dolphin” was very awesome, but I didn’t fit in it!
I still miss my ’95 SE and ’96 GT, always wanted a GTS.
Terrible cars but I loved the look!
My ex’s MX-6 LS “dolphin” was very awesome, but I didn’t fit in it!
I’ve always loved Mustangs. I’ve also always enjoyed being Probed as well. Chill,this is pride month. I’ve had both Stangs and Probes in my long lifetime. I did prefer the probe over the Mustang in day to day driving.
I’ve always loved Mustangs. I’ve also always enjoyed being Probed as well. Chill,this is pride month. I’ve had both Stangs and Probes in my long lifetime. I did prefer the probe over the Mustang in day to day driving.
I really want you to keep this series going through at least around 2010 model years…
I really want you to keep this series going through at least around 2010 model years…
I can assure you that F-15s do, in fact, have wheels. Be kind of tough to take off, land , and taxi without them. Not that a few haven’t tried.
I do understand your real point, being that the F-15s drag coefficient is achieved with the landing gear retracted within the fuselage whereas the Probe achieved the same with its wheels exposed. It was your particular phrasing in referring to the F15 as, “… a vehicle that doesn’t even have wheels,” that I found amusing.
Otherwise, another entertaining and provocative post. Thank you.
I can assure you that F-15s do, in fact, have wheels. Be kind of tough to take off, land , and taxi without them. Not that a few haven’t tried.
I do understand your real point, being that the F-15s drag coefficient is achieved with the landing gear retracted within the fuselage whereas the Probe achieved the same with its wheels exposed. It was your particular phrasing in referring to the F15 as, “… a vehicle that doesn’t even have wheels,” that I found amusing.
Otherwise, another entertaining and provocative post. Thank you.
I wonder what Adrian Clarke has to say about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHrHTuWm7WA
Ha! I wasn’t actually referring to our friend there. Besides, he’s a bit more Peter Murphy than Robert Smith, is he not?
If anything, Dave Vanian.
I wonder what Adrian Clarke has to say about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHrHTuWm7WA
Ha! I wasn’t actually referring to our friend there. Besides, he’s a bit more Peter Murphy than Robert Smith, is he not?
If anything, Dave Vanian.
Yay: Friday Bishop!
the front 3/4 view reminds me of the Subaru SVX—and their XT had the dash pod tied to the steering wheel as well. Was this at all conscious?
regardless, I enjoy this timeline quite a bit as an OG genX
Both the SVX and XT had Cd values of 0.29, which were record breaking for a production car of their period.
The windows of the SVX could have lended themselves well to an AeroStang taking cues from the Prove V concept.
I was quite proud that my little XT was slicker than a contemporary Porsche. Since our exchange about turning one into an EV, I’ve experienced a new Venza, and now I wonder about the feasibility of stuffing that e-cvt mess in the back of one…
I may be able to offer some pointers on modernizing many components on that car as I did have an 86 XT lemons car that after blowing it’s original engine in it’s first race, we then transplanted a wrx drivetrain into, over, and over, again, until we gave up on attempting to endurance race a turbo subaru.
Also one of my favorite features of my SVX I had was how quiet the car was with the windows down and the sunroof open while cruising at 80mph. It made the RX8 that replaced it so annoying, until I slowly realized the RX8 was actually one of the best at that compared to other cars made at the time.
I wish they still made the svx.
Yay: Friday Bishop!
the front 3/4 view reminds me of the Subaru SVX—and their XT had the dash pod tied to the steering wheel as well. Was this at all conscious?
regardless, I enjoy this timeline quite a bit as an OG genX
Both the SVX and XT had Cd values of 0.29, which were record breaking for a production car of their period.
The windows of the SVX could have lended themselves well to an AeroStang taking cues from the Prove V concept.
I was quite proud that my little XT was slicker than a contemporary Porsche. Since our exchange about turning one into an EV, I’ve experienced a new Venza, and now I wonder about the feasibility of stuffing that e-cvt mess in the back of one…
I may be able to offer some pointers on modernizing many components on that car as I did have an 86 XT lemons car that after blowing it’s original engine in it’s first race, we then transplanted a wrx drivetrain into, over, and over, again, until we gave up on attempting to endurance race a turbo subaru.
Also one of my favorite features of my SVX I had was how quiet the car was with the windows down and the sunroof open while cruising at 80mph. It made the RX8 that replaced it so annoying, until I slowly realized the RX8 was actually one of the best at that compared to other cars made at the time.
I wish they still made the svx.
I know the back end is aerodynamically sound, but it looks too much like the Saleen S7 for me. I couldn’t appreciate it when that car came out, and I can’t now.
The front & interior are spot on, though!
I know the back end is aerodynamically sound, but it looks too much like the Saleen S7 for me. I couldn’t appreciate it when that car came out, and I can’t now.
The front & interior are spot on, though!
This concept is the tits.
This is like the capstone of your COTD(s) here, just b/c it’s like you’re so happy with this that you can’t suppress it. 🙂
I can’t think of a higher compliment, sir.
“This concept is the eyes.”
This concept is the tits.
This is like the capstone of your COTD(s) here, just b/c it’s like you’re so happy with this that you can’t suppress it. 🙂
I can’t think of a higher compliment, sir.
“This concept is the eyes.”
I dunno man – This seems too far down the futuristic rabbit hole that Camaro and Firebird fell down – and the tail end is more Ferrari F40 than Ford.
I believe the reason Mustang kept selling despite it’s boxiness is that is was light and cheap (because it was on a shared platform with a small sedan) and reasonably roomy with usable space – unlike the Camaro/Firebird duo which were on a dedicated platform.
The SVO Mustang was the Fox Mustang of the future – and the Merkur XR4ti was the next step forward – being a derivative of the Ford Sierra.
IMHO, the Sierra should have also been built in the US rather than the 3rd level Fox LTD/Marquis pair – so that the XR4ti could have been the new Mustang.
You mention the rabbithole that Mustangs have gone down since 2005 – that itself is the issue with building the car on a platform shared by a Lincoln LS and Jaguar S Type rather than a smaller, more affordable car. Had the Mustang been built as a derivative of the 626/Mondeo/Fusion/Milan platform – which had AWD potential designed in – it could be a cheaper, smaller RWD version of those sedans, with greater sales.
A Mondeo-platform ‘Stang with RWD actually could have lended itself well to a shape similar to the above.
I like to imagine a ProbeVStang updated in the 2000s with the same overall shape, but the retrograde styling cues from the ‘Stang of the era we got. 3-vertical rear lights in the back, 4-rally lights up front, and with perhaps rear wheel skirts but also a rear fastback design that harkened back to the Mach 1 of the early 1970s but which doubled as a practical hatchback with fold-down rear seats. We could have had something truly sexy and unique while also being efficient and practical. A 4-cylinder variant could have been a Prius-beater on economy while competing with a Porsche Boxster or Audi TT of the era for straight-line performance for about 2/3 the price, while the V8 would have been a supercar with top speeds approaching 200 mph that got 40 mpg highway.
I dunno man – This seems too far down the futuristic rabbit hole that Camaro and Firebird fell down – and the tail end is more Ferrari F40 than Ford.
I believe the reason Mustang kept selling despite it’s boxiness is that is was light and cheap (because it was on a shared platform with a small sedan) and reasonably roomy with usable space – unlike the Camaro/Firebird duo which were on a dedicated platform.
The SVO Mustang was the Fox Mustang of the future – and the Merkur XR4ti was the next step forward – being a derivative of the Ford Sierra.
IMHO, the Sierra should have also been built in the US rather than the 3rd level Fox LTD/Marquis pair – so that the XR4ti could have been the new Mustang.
You mention the rabbithole that Mustangs have gone down since 2005 – that itself is the issue with building the car on a platform shared by a Lincoln LS and Jaguar S Type rather than a smaller, more affordable car. Had the Mustang been built as a derivative of the 626/Mondeo/Fusion/Milan platform – which had AWD potential designed in – it could be a cheaper, smaller RWD version of those sedans, with greater sales.
A Mondeo-platform ‘Stang with RWD actually could have lended itself well to a shape similar to the above.
I like to imagine a ProbeVStang updated in the 2000s with the same overall shape, but the retrograde styling cues from the ‘Stang of the era we got. 3-vertical rear lights in the back, 4-rally lights up front, and with perhaps rear wheel skirts but also a rear fastback design that harkened back to the Mach 1 of the early 1970s but which doubled as a practical hatchback with fold-down rear seats. We could have had something truly sexy and unique while also being efficient and practical. A 4-cylinder variant could have been a Prius-beater on economy while competing with a Porsche Boxster or Audi TT of the era for straight-line performance for about 2/3 the price, while the V8 would have been a supercar with top speeds approaching 200 mph that got 40 mpg highway.
Mustangs with low drag coefficients? You really like teasing Toecutter, don’t you? Poor guy is gonna be upset you didn’t keep some of those aero features. But then, if this car actually existed, he would figure out how to add them on. But still. Quit teasing him.
It’s his idea, actually, to do the Probe Mustangs, which is why I went so far as to do the smooth wheel cover option on the last one. At the very least, I was going to do rear wheel skirts on this but again it just wasn’t “Mustang” enough.
In hindsight the Probe series with skirts might have made a better T-Bird?
Rear wheel skirts are wonderful things, as long as they are easy to remove for quick tire changes. The Citroen DS had some things to teach us about how to do it right.
Actually, I think this design still would have been quite low in drag, especially by today’s standards.
A < 0.20 Cd is possible tweaking this design. With a 5.0 V8 under the hood, it would approach 40 mpg cruising 70 mph on the highway, and also approach 190 mph top speed on a stock 5.0 V8 with correctly chosen gear ratios.
Ferrari top speed and acceleration, for Mustang money, AND a halo car for fuel economy at the time to boot WHILE having a V8.
I think people would have flocked to it like flies on crap, regardless of looks. This concept made use of the ultimate cheat code: physics.
The auto industry then as it does today, suffers from a lack of vision and foresight. The offerings suffer greatly for it.
Mustangs with low drag coefficients? You really like teasing Toecutter, don’t you? Poor guy is gonna be upset you didn’t keep some of those aero features. But then, if this car actually existed, he would figure out how to add them on. But still. Quit teasing him.
It’s his idea, actually, to do the Probe Mustangs, which is why I went so far as to do the smooth wheel cover option on the last one. At the very least, I was going to do rear wheel skirts on this but again it just wasn’t “Mustang” enough.
In hindsight the Probe series with skirts might have made a better T-Bird?
Rear wheel skirts are wonderful things, as long as they are easy to remove for quick tire changes. The Citroen DS had some things to teach us about how to do it right.
Actually, I think this design still would have been quite low in drag, especially by today’s standards.
A < 0.20 Cd is possible tweaking this design. With a 5.0 V8 under the hood, it would approach 40 mpg cruising 70 mph on the highway, and also approach 190 mph top speed on a stock 5.0 V8 with correctly chosen gear ratios.
Ferrari top speed and acceleration, for Mustang money, AND a halo car for fuel economy at the time to boot WHILE having a V8.
I think people would have flocked to it like flies on crap, regardless of looks. This concept made use of the ultimate cheat code: physics.
The auto industry then as it does today, suffers from a lack of vision and foresight. The offerings suffer greatly for it.
Wow, seeing those two ’87s together really does it for me; I never thought of them as siblings but the similarities are undeniable! Neat-o, excellent photo curation, what a pair.
Wow, seeing those two ’87s together really does it for me; I never thought of them as siblings but the similarities are undeniable! Neat-o, excellent photo curation, what a pair.
I like how certain elements of the Bishop-timeline version seem to come from the concurrent version in our universe – the c-pillars, the style of embossed lettering on the bumper.
Looking at it, I wonder – could this model have eventually provided the promised/fantasied Mustang sedan or 5-door? Seems nearly long enough to make it happen.
I mean…this timeline could keep going into the 2000s, when coupes started to lose favor with the buying public but the SUV-pocalypse wasn’t quite here yet. 😉
Jack, the thing that seems strangest to me now is how they somehow picked the T-Bird to be the flagship tech poster child during the 80s, all the way through the 1989 “SuperCoupe bird”.
In retrospect, if they really were planning on killing the Mustang (in its rear drive form) around 1988 it starts to make more sense, I guess?
Remember that Panthers were supposed to die by the mid-eighties so it was funny to see those facelifted 1988- models as well.
I’m Gen-X prime myself, and what I most recall vis a vis the two cars’ positioning is that T-bird buyers seemed to skew older than Mustang buyers. It makes me wonder if Ford, by the mid-80s, had an inkling of where the Mustang would be headed in 20 years time, so didn’t try as hard anymore.
And where’s the futuristic redesigned pony emblem already?! You have to keep the series going just so I can see it. After all, turn of the century would seemingly be the perfect time for a change like that given the Bishop timeline has no need to go full-on retro. 😉
I didn’t forget you, Jack! I tried but couldn’t get something I liked more than the latest, updated 2024 one so I used that. Mine ended up looking sort of like Impala logos that ate too many tacos. I’ll keep at it.
It’s gotta be difficult if only b/c it nearly completely disappeared in the ’80s/very early ’90s.
I think it reappeared as a dash badge on the 20h anniversary edition (though maybe nobody noticed over the racket of Ford and Carroll Shelby fighting over the GT350 striping), but never on the front. We got it back full time with the SN95, but Ford had started the retro touch thing so we never really had a chance for an evolution along the way.
That reminds me the 1996(ish) logo for the Chevy Impala was pretty slick and I am not a GM fan, though as an American I do hope they successfully make the transition to EVs w/o excessive government handouts or outright another bailout Ala 2008
I like how certain elements of the Bishop-timeline version seem to come from the concurrent version in our universe – the c-pillars, the style of embossed lettering on the bumper.
Looking at it, I wonder – could this model have eventually provided the promised/fantasied Mustang sedan or 5-door? Seems nearly long enough to make it happen.
I mean…this timeline could keep going into the 2000s, when coupes started to lose favor with the buying public but the SUV-pocalypse wasn’t quite here yet. 😉
Jack, the thing that seems strangest to me now is how they somehow picked the T-Bird to be the flagship tech poster child during the 80s, all the way through the 1989 “SuperCoupe bird”.
In retrospect, if they really were planning on killing the Mustang (in its rear drive form) around 1988 it starts to make more sense, I guess?
Remember that Panthers were supposed to die by the mid-eighties so it was funny to see those facelifted 1988- models as well.
I’m Gen-X prime myself, and what I most recall vis a vis the two cars’ positioning is that T-bird buyers seemed to skew older than Mustang buyers. It makes me wonder if Ford, by the mid-80s, had an inkling of where the Mustang would be headed in 20 years time, so didn’t try as hard anymore.
And where’s the futuristic redesigned pony emblem already?! You have to keep the series going just so I can see it. After all, turn of the century would seemingly be the perfect time for a change like that given the Bishop timeline has no need to go full-on retro. 😉
I didn’t forget you, Jack! I tried but couldn’t get something I liked more than the latest, updated 2024 one so I used that. Mine ended up looking sort of like Impala logos that ate too many tacos. I’ll keep at it.
It’s gotta be difficult if only b/c it nearly completely disappeared in the ’80s/very early ’90s.
I think it reappeared as a dash badge on the 20h anniversary edition (though maybe nobody noticed over the racket of Ford and Carroll Shelby fighting over the GT350 striping), but never on the front. We got it back full time with the SN95, but Ford had started the retro touch thing so we never really had a chance for an evolution along the way.
That reminds me the 1996(ish) logo for the Chevy Impala was pretty slick and I am not a GM fan, though as an American I do hope they successfully make the transition to EVs w/o excessive government handouts or outright another bailout Ala 2008