1983 Ford Mustang GT: Driving an Original 10Best Cars Winner

From the December 2017 issue

I’m behind the wheel of a 34-year-old Mustang GT. A soft burble from its V-8 lolls in the air. The tach needle lazily rises and falls as the manual shifter eases through all five gears. I’m rolling down Telegraph Road, not far from Ford’s Dearborn, Michigan, headquarters. My destination is 1983.

That was a banner year for Car and Driver—and for Ford’s pony car. It was the year we inaugurated our 10Best awards and voted the Mustang GT onto that first 10Best list. I was there, which is why I borrowed this all-original, 17,000-mile beauty from Mustang collector Mike Berardi: to take a pony ride back to the genesis of 10Best in one of the cars that won, for a look at how it all began.

This generation of Mustang was already in its fifth year when it was admitted to the 10Best class of 1983. Gas was a little over a buck a gallon, big hair was in, Ronald Reagan was president, and Michael Jackson had yet to destroy his legacy.

If you can remember 1983, the GT feels, well, a bit like you probably do—older, lazier, and stiffer. You sit tall, looking out through huge windows framed by thin pillars; the current Mustang is a bunker in comparison. The shifter throws are so long that you have to extend your right arm fully to engage fifth gear. At 50 mph, the GT shivers like a puppy in a thunderstorm. Road noise, wind rush, and the cacophony of the surrounding traffic drown out the mellow V-8. I don’t remember it being this gritty back then; time and tide wait for no car, apparently.

The GT provides a lesson in how much we take for granted in today’s cars. It lacks power-operated mirrors, windows, and seats. The interior contains enough shiny black plastic to supply a Lego factory. “Navigation system” meant a paper map in 1983, but there aren’t any map pockets. Its safety gear includes not a single airbag. And where are the cupholders? If you’d grabbed a coffee from the McDonald’s drive-through in ’83, you would have had to keep it between your legs until you’d downed it.

Dipping into the throttle from a stoplight reveals that this Stang is more sound than fury. As the revs climb toward the tach’s 5200-rpm yellow zone, the V-8’s voice gets scratchy. The GT’s engine, known for decades as the 5.0 despite actually displaying 4942 cubic centimeters, or 4.9 liters, sniffs through a four-barrel carb, belches exhaust through a restrictive catalytic converter, and develops a meager 175 horsepower at 4000 rpm. And that was a noteworthy improvement over the ’82 GT’s minuscule 157-hp allotment.

But thanks to 245 pound-feet of torque at 2400 rpm and a 3070-pound curb weight, the Mustang feels surprisingly lively and agile in normal driving. Back when it was new, we clocked its zero-to-60-mph time at 7.0 seconds, only a couple of ticks behind the quickest car we tested in 1982—the 220-hp Porsche 928, which did the 60-mph sprint in 6.8 seconds. Of course, by today’s standards, the GT is a snail tied to a brick: A Honda Odyssey minivan will blow the stripe off the GT’s hood in acceleration, cornering, and braking.

Still, the third-gen Mustang GT marked the start of a long climb out of the Dark Ages for American carmakers. Two oil shortages in the previous 10 years and the ratcheting up of emissions standards had diverted engineering resources into building smaller, more efficient cars. By 1983, though, the Camaro/Mustang performance race was on again. That rivalry was, like now, about more than just straight-line speed, so Ford also retuned the ’83 GT’s suspension for better handling and widened its Michelin TRX rubber for more grip.

Car and Driver was looking for more traction as well. Our legendary editor-publisher, the late David E. Davis Jr., was not content to captain the most literate, creative, outrageous, and technically astute car magazine of the time. He was consumed by a desire to pulverize the other car magazines—namely Motor Trend. The enemy had its Car of the Year award—a promotional bonanza that brought it readers, ad revenue, and auto-industry recognition.

David E.’s counteroffensive was the editorial equivalent of shock and awe: Since Motor Trend crowned one car every year, we would anoint 10, making our award 10 times better! Then we’d demoralize the Trendies by adding nine more brilliant stories to the feature package.

Pointing the old Mustang west, I’m determined to do something we hadn’t done 34 years earlier: drive it on C/D’s 10Best evaluation loop. None of the original 10Best winners were driven there. Why not? Because there was no loop. Well, it was there; we just hadn’t discovered it yet, let alone hatched the idea of actually conducting an annual 10Best drive-off on it. Instead, we argued around the office conference table until everyone was disgusted that one or another personal fave hadn’t made the final cut.

David E. imposed two stipulations on that initial 10Best: First, the cars couldn’t be “hideously expensive.” And second, we would choose five imported and five domestic models. He likely instituted those rules in the hope of giving the domestics a chance, and to remain on speaking terms with the Detroit car companies’ execs and their advertising agencies. The appearance of a bias toward expensive imported cars—which were, as a group, better than the American cars of the day—surely would have made those important industry relationships more difficult.

Both rules were clearly stated in the 10Best Cars introduction. Readers didn’t have any problem with them, but with American cars rapidly improving, the import/domestic quota disappeared. A price cap soon came into effect; we’ve used $80,000 in recent years, roughly 2.3 times today’s average new-car price.

Rules or no, that first 10Best list included an eclectic group of cars: the AMC/Renault Alliance, Chevrolet Caprice Classic, Honda Accord, Mazda RX-7, Mercedes-Benz 380SEL, Pontiac 6000STE, Porsche 944, Toyota Celica Supra, Volkswagen Rabbit GTI—and the Ford Mustang GT. History has proved most of them worthy. And the Alliance support group still meets every Thursday.

Out on the 10Best loop in the GT, I pick up the pace gingerly; the Mustang’s feathery steering doesn’t send a single bit of information up through the spindly four-spoke wheel. I’d forgotten that. Diving into corners is unnerving, like groping for a cellar light switch in total darkness. With so little grip—we measured 0.76 g on the skidpad in 1983—and brakes that go soft after a handful of corners, it would be all too easy to sail Mr. Berardi’s Polar White jewel off into the trees.

I do remember the rumba that the solid rear axle does over bumps, and how the GT’s tail feints to the outside coming out of corners when you’re hard on the throttle. At first, I’m just a tourist, but, slowly, my eyes and hands acclimate to the GT’s outmoded controls and I’m a part of 1983 again, hanging the tail out and causing the rear axle to buck like a mildly annoyed filly.

The Mustang GT survived this exercise undiminished, as it had so many other floggings through the years. It is pretty much the car we remember—wieldy and willing but a bit edgy. In its day, it was a strong performer and a bargain at its $9449 base price. Since 1983, there’s been steady improvement that’s led us to the 460-hp 2018 Mustang GT, a car that retains the ’83’s essence and vitality while remaining relevant. We’d like to think the same of 10Best. Taking our cue from the Mustang GT, we’ll keep at it.

Specifications >

1983 Ford Mustang GT*

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback

PRICE AS TESTED: $10,816 (base price: $9449)

ENGINE TYPE: pushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and heads, 1x4-bbl Holley carburetor

Displacement: 302 cu in, 4942 cc
Power: 175 hp @ 4000 rpm
Torque: 245 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 5-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 100.4 in
Length: 179.1 in
Width: 69.1 in Height: 51.4 in
Passenger volume: 82 cu ft
Curb weight: 3070 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 19.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 90 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 125 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 208 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.76 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA combined/city/hwy: 16/13/21 mpg
C/D observed: 15 mpg
*Specs and results, June 1983.