Starship From South Africa, joined Nov 1999, 1098 posts, RR: 13 Posted (14 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 2865 times:
First came the Chevrolet Corvair. The first mass production rear-engined car in the USA. It started off as a small (by American standards) family sedan, but people actually found them fun to drive and this lead to the intoduction of the sporty Monza model and then came coupes, convertibles and even turbocharged Spyder models. They sold like hot cakes until Ralph Nader declared the Corvair "unsafe at any speed" (subsequently proved wrong).
Anyway, in the meantime Ford had to come up with an answer to the Corvair. Enter the Mustang , introduced in 1964 as a 1965 model.
Note the air intakes just ahead of the rear wheel arches? Think that was just a styling cue? No way - they were air intakes for the rear engine. However, contoversy over the Corvair's rear engine layout made the guys at Ford rethink the concept and hastily moved the engine to the front. The design of the body was too far advanced to change the details and the air intakes just became faux ones, later deleted and now back on the latest models. Fact or fiction?
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 2842 times:
Fact or fiction? I'll vote fiction. The Mustang was based on the Falcon platform, which would've nixed the idea of the rear engine car from the get-go. The front engine/rear drive also gave the Mustang a large advantage of engine selection over the Corvair. -- BTW, those scoops on the rear quarters are simulated brake-cooling scoops. Later Shelby Mustangs had functional brake cooling scoops.
Starship From South Africa, joined Nov 1999, 1098 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2826 times:
The early Mustangs had undersized drum brakes all round probably borrowed from the Falcon parts bin and I understand they did not stop too well. I don't think any amount of cooling would have made any difference.
Anyway, guess what? An internet search has revealed that the 1962 prototype Mustang did indeed have a rear, or rear mid-mounted engine. Just look at the size of the air intake on this one!
1962 Mustang Prototype Introduced at Watkins Glen Raceway
As we all know, Geoshitties does not allow hot-linking to photos hosted on their site, but if you go here and click on the pics to enlarge them, it will be quite evident that the prototype Mustang had the engine at the back!
Rapo From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Hate to burst your bubble, but that prototype was one of many styling & engineering excercises prior to the first production Mustang we all know & love today. They had many designers working on various platforms at the same time. The above one was just one of of the "outside mainstream" designs that weren't seriously considered.
As far as the rear vents go, even though the "insta-fade" rear drum brakes were less than effective, they did accumulate a fair amount of heat.
Fordlover From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 month 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2774 times:
I'll weigh in on this one. FICTION! As mentioned, the rear scoops are for brake cooling and were functional on Shelby models. The original Mustang is a Falcon underneath, plain and simple. It was always designed as a front engine. To be a rear engine, it would have to be built on a completely different platform. So the last minute engine-end swap just doesn't fly. There is a whole lot more involved than just moving the engine from one end to the other.