The 1982 Ford Mustang is a crucial installment in the third-generation "Fox Body" era, which ran from 1979 to 1993. It was offered in both notchback coupe and hatchback body styles. Key trims included the base L, GL, GLX, and the revered GT. With new prices ranging approximately from $6,000 to $10,000, the 1982 model stood out for marking the triumphant return of the 5.0L "High Output" V8 in the GT, signaling a performance resurgence after the malaise era and making it exceptionally popular among enthusiasts.
The Good
The 1982 Mustang, especially the GT, offered impressive performance with its returning 5.0L V8, providing a thrilling, raw driving experience that emotional buyers crave. Practically, its Fox Body design is relatively lightweight and straightforward, contributing to decent reliability and ease of maintenance. The strong aftermarket support and growing classic status ensure excellent value and long-term enjoyment for enthusiasts.
The Bad
Known weaknesses for the 1982 Ford Mustang include susceptibility to rust, particularly in the frame rails, strut towers, and rear hatch area. Interior plastics are prone to cracking and fading, and earlier carbureted engines can be finicky. The braking system on non-GT models was often inadequate, and the overall ride quality can be unrefined compared to modern vehicles.
1982 Ford Mustang: Quick Overview
- Engine Options:
- 2.3L "Pinto" Inline-4: The base engine, offering basic transportation.
- 3.3L Inline-6: A step up from the I4, providing slightly more power and smoother operation.
- 4.2L V8 (255 ci): A carryover V8, often criticized for its low power output.
- 5.0L "High Output" V8 (302 ci): The performance flagship, exclusive to the GT, marking a return to Mustang's muscle car roots. - Horsepower:
- 2.3L I4: Approximately 88 hp
- 3.3L I6: Approximately 85 hp
- 4.2L V8: Approximately 120 hp
- 5.0L HO V8: Approximately 157 hp - Fuel Economy (EPA estimates, highly variable with driving style):
- I4: Around 20-25 MPG combined
- I6: Around 18-22 MPG combined
- V8s: Around 15-20 MPG combined (with the 5.0L generally on the lower end) - 0-60 MPH Times:
- I4/I6/4.2L V8: Ranged from 10-14+ seconds, depending on transmission and conditions.
- 5.0L HO V8: Approximately 7-8 seconds, a significant performance improvement for its time. - Towing Capacity:
- Generally not designed for heavy towing. If applicable, light utility trailers are rated around 1,000-1,500 lbs, primarily with V8 engines. - Trim-Level Features:
- L (Base): Very sparse. Manual windows, manual locks, basic vinyl interior, often no radio or air conditioning. Aimed at economy.
- GL: Added a few creature comforts over the L, such as cloth seats, upgraded interior trim, and optional power accessories.
- GLX: Positioned as the luxury trim. Featured more upscale interior materials, additional sound insulation, power windows, power locks, and often full instrumentation.
- GT: The performance model. Included the 5.0L HO V8, sport-tuned suspension, larger tires and wheels, fog lights, unique exterior styling (hood scoop, rear spoiler), and a sportier interior with bucket seats and a full gauge cluster. Available in both hatchback and notchback forms, with the hatchback generally seen as more performance-oriented due to its versatility.
1982 Ford Mustang Specifications
Vehicle Information
| Year | 1982 |
| Make | Ford |
| Model | Mustang |
| Trim | - |
| Style | 2-Door Sedan |
| Type | Sedan |
| Category | Compact Car |
Manufacturing Details
| Made In | United States |
| Manufacturing City | ST. PAUL |
Dimensions
| Doors | 2-Door |
| Curb Weight | - |
| Gross Vehicle Weight Rating | - |
| Overall Height | - |
| Overall Length | - |
| Overall Width | - |
| Wheelbase Length | - |
| Standard Seating | - |
Engine & Performance
| Engine | 5.0-L V-8 OHV 16V |
| Engine Size | 5L |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 |
| Transmission | - |
| Transmission Type | - |
| Transmission Speeds | - |
| Drivetrain | Rear-Wheel Drive |
Additional Features
| Anti-Brake System | - |
| Steering Type | - |
Pricing
| Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) | - |
| Invoice Price | - |
| Delivery Charges | - |
Vehicle History Report
Vehicle
Specifications
Specifications
Ownership
History
History
All History
Events
Events
NMVTIS Title
History Check
History Check
Salvage/Rebuilt
Check
Check
Accident
Check
Check
Theft
Check
Check
Open Lien
Check
Check
Past Sale
Listings
Listings
Safety
Recalls
Recalls
Odometer
Check
Check
Market Price
Analysis
Analysis
What Problems Does the 1982 Ford Mustang Have?
Owners of the 1982 Ford Mustang frequently report several common problems, many of which are characteristic of vehicles from its era and age. Rust is a major concern, particularly in northern climates where road salt is used. Common rust areas include the strut towers, frame rails (especially near the rear control arm mounts), rocker panels, lower fenders, and around the hatchback glass. This structural rust can compromise safety and vehicle integrity over time.
Carburetor issues are also common for the 1982 models, especially with the 2-barrel units on the 4.2L V8 and other non-HO engines. Owners often experience rough idling, stalling, and difficulty tuning, requiring regular maintenance or eventual upgrade to aftermarket carburetors or fuel injection. The 5.0L HO's 4-barrel carburetor was generally better but still susceptible to wear.
Electrical gremlins are another frequently cited issue. Problems can range from failing power window motors, erratic gauges (especially fuel and temperature), and dashboard lights, to intermittent issues with the wiring harness and relays. The aging plastic components in the interior, such as dashboards, tend to crack and warp due to sun exposure.
Regarding recalls, specific recalls for the 1982 model year are rare to find documented for significant issues, as minor issues from decades ago may not be widely publicized or relevant today. Most issues would have been addressed under warranty at the time or become owner-managed problems.
Long-term reliability concerns revolve around the degradation of rubber components (bushings, hoses), potential for chassis flex due to age and spirited driving, and the cumulative effects of rust. While the 5.0L HO V8 is mechanically robust and known for its durability, neglect of the cooling system can lead to overheating. Brake components, especially the rear drum brakes on lower trims, were considered adequate but often prone to fade and require regular adjustment. Overall, the Fox Body Mustangs are mechanically simple, which aids in repairability, but ongoing vigilance for rust and electrical problems is essential for long-term ownership.
Carburetor issues are also common for the 1982 models, especially with the 2-barrel units on the 4.2L V8 and other non-HO engines. Owners often experience rough idling, stalling, and difficulty tuning, requiring regular maintenance or eventual upgrade to aftermarket carburetors or fuel injection. The 5.0L HO's 4-barrel carburetor was generally better but still susceptible to wear.
Electrical gremlins are another frequently cited issue. Problems can range from failing power window motors, erratic gauges (especially fuel and temperature), and dashboard lights, to intermittent issues with the wiring harness and relays. The aging plastic components in the interior, such as dashboards, tend to crack and warp due to sun exposure.
Regarding recalls, specific recalls for the 1982 model year are rare to find documented for significant issues, as minor issues from decades ago may not be widely publicized or relevant today. Most issues would have been addressed under warranty at the time or become owner-managed problems.
Long-term reliability concerns revolve around the degradation of rubber components (bushings, hoses), potential for chassis flex due to age and spirited driving, and the cumulative effects of rust. While the 5.0L HO V8 is mechanically robust and known for its durability, neglect of the cooling system can lead to overheating. Brake components, especially the rear drum brakes on lower trims, were considered adequate but often prone to fade and require regular adjustment. Overall, the Fox Body Mustangs are mechanically simple, which aids in repairability, but ongoing vigilance for rust and electrical problems is essential for long-term ownership.
How long will the 1982 Ford Mustang last?
With good maintenance habits, a 1982 Ford Mustang, particularly models equipped with the durable 5.0L V8, can easily achieve and surpass 150,000 to 200,000 miles, with many examples still running strong today. The inherent simplicity of its mechanical design contributes significantly to its long-term durability. The core powertrains are generally robust and forgiving.
However, long-term weaknesses primarily surface in the body and interior. Rust is a perennial issue, progressively attacking frame rails, strut towers, and body panels, which can become critical over decades. Interior plastics are notorious for cracking, fading, and becoming brittle, impacting aesthetic durability. Rubber bushings and seals throughout the suspension and engine bay degrade over time, leading to a less refined ride and increased maintenance needs. Electrical systems, while simple, can develop age-related gremlins, requiring attention. Despite these points, a well-cared-for Fox Body can offer many years of enjoyable service.
However, long-term weaknesses primarily surface in the body and interior. Rust is a perennial issue, progressively attacking frame rails, strut towers, and body panels, which can become critical over decades. Interior plastics are notorious for cracking, fading, and becoming brittle, impacting aesthetic durability. Rubber bushings and seals throughout the suspension and engine bay degrade over time, leading to a less refined ride and increased maintenance needs. Electrical systems, while simple, can develop age-related gremlins, requiring attention. Despite these points, a well-cared-for Fox Body can offer many years of enjoyable service.
What Technology & Safety Features are Included?
The 1982 Ford Mustang predates virtually all modern automotive technology, meaning built-in tech, driver-assistance, and sophisticated safety features are largely absent. Its focus was on performance and value, not electronic aids.
Built-in Tech: This category is extremely basic. The most advanced "tech" would have been a rudimentary engine management system for emissions control and ignition timing on some models, far from today's sophisticated ECUs. There were no digital dashboards, trip computers, or complex electronic interfaces.
Entertainment: Standard entertainment typically included an AM/FM radio. Higher trims or optional packages could add an AM/FM stereo with a cassette player. Sound quality was generally basic, delivered through a few dashboard or door-mounted speakers. There were no CD players, satellite radio, or smartphone integration options.
Driver-Assistance: There were no driver-assistance features whatsoever. This means no anti-lock brakes (ABS), traction control, stability control, cruise control (often optional), rearview cameras, parking sensors, or any form of automated driving aids. Drivers relied solely on their skill and awareness.
Safety Features: Safety features were limited to what was mandated at the time. This included three-point seatbelts for front occupants (lap belts for rear), a padded dashboard, and energy-absorbing steering columns. Airbags were not available in any form for the 1982 model year. Side-impact protection was minimal by modern standards, and the vehicle lacked structural reinforcements found in contemporary cars. Crash-test ratings as we know them today (e.g., from NHTSA or IIHS) were not conducted for vehicles of this era, making direct comparisons impossible. These vehicles were designed to different safety standards, and would perform poorly in modern crash tests.
Optional Features: Despite the basic nature, buyers could option their Mustangs with conveniences like air conditioning, power windows, power door locks, power steering, cruise control, tilt steering wheel, intermittent wipers, a more robust sound system, and T-tops for an open-air experience.
Built-in Tech: This category is extremely basic. The most advanced "tech" would have been a rudimentary engine management system for emissions control and ignition timing on some models, far from today's sophisticated ECUs. There were no digital dashboards, trip computers, or complex electronic interfaces.
Entertainment: Standard entertainment typically included an AM/FM radio. Higher trims or optional packages could add an AM/FM stereo with a cassette player. Sound quality was generally basic, delivered through a few dashboard or door-mounted speakers. There were no CD players, satellite radio, or smartphone integration options.
Driver-Assistance: There were no driver-assistance features whatsoever. This means no anti-lock brakes (ABS), traction control, stability control, cruise control (often optional), rearview cameras, parking sensors, or any form of automated driving aids. Drivers relied solely on their skill and awareness.
Safety Features: Safety features were limited to what was mandated at the time. This included three-point seatbelts for front occupants (lap belts for rear), a padded dashboard, and energy-absorbing steering columns. Airbags were not available in any form for the 1982 model year. Side-impact protection was minimal by modern standards, and the vehicle lacked structural reinforcements found in contemporary cars. Crash-test ratings as we know them today (e.g., from NHTSA or IIHS) were not conducted for vehicles of this era, making direct comparisons impossible. These vehicles were designed to different safety standards, and would perform poorly in modern crash tests.
Optional Features: Despite the basic nature, buyers could option their Mustangs with conveniences like air conditioning, power windows, power door locks, power steering, cruise control, tilt steering wheel, intermittent wipers, a more robust sound system, and T-tops for an open-air experience.
What Colors Options are Available?
We’re working on this section!
In the meantime, feel free to explore the other sections for more content.
In the meantime, feel free to explore the other sections for more content.
1982 Ford Mustang Prices and Market Value
When new, the 1982 Ford Mustang had a broad price range reflecting its diverse trims. A base L model could start around $6,000, while a well-equipped GT 5.0L HO would command closer to $9,000-$10,000. This made it an accessible performance car for its era.
Today, used market prices are highly variable. Project cars or less desirable 4/6-cylinder models might fetch $1,000-$5,000. Clean, drivable examples, especially with the 5.0L V8, typically range from $5,000-$15,000. Pristine, low-mileage GTs or highly original examples can command $15,000 to $30,000+, demonstrating significant appreciation from their initial depreciation phase.
Initially, like most new cars, the 1982 Mustang depreciated steeply. However, its status as a "Fox Body" classic, particularly the performance-oriented GT, has led to it appreciating into a collector's item. Factors critically affecting resale value include the presence of the 5.0L HO engine, overall condition (rust-free examples are premium), originality versus modifications, body style (GT hatchbacks often more sought after for performance, notchbacks for clean lines), and documentation of maintenance.
Today, used market prices are highly variable. Project cars or less desirable 4/6-cylinder models might fetch $1,000-$5,000. Clean, drivable examples, especially with the 5.0L V8, typically range from $5,000-$15,000. Pristine, low-mileage GTs or highly original examples can command $15,000 to $30,000+, demonstrating significant appreciation from their initial depreciation phase.
Initially, like most new cars, the 1982 Mustang depreciated steeply. However, its status as a "Fox Body" classic, particularly the performance-oriented GT, has led to it appreciating into a collector's item. Factors critically affecting resale value include the presence of the 5.0L HO engine, overall condition (rust-free examples are premium), originality versus modifications, body style (GT hatchbacks often more sought after for performance, notchbacks for clean lines), and documentation of maintenance.
1982 Ford Mustang Cost of Ownership
Owning a 1982 Ford Mustang can be surprisingly economical for a classic, but with caveats. Insurance can be affordable, especially if you opt for classic car insurance policies, provided it's not a daily driver.
Fuel costs will be higher than modern cars; the carbureted V8s average 15-20 MPG, while 4/6-cylinders are better but still not efficient. Maintenance and repair are generally inexpensive. Parts are plentiful and often cheap due to the massive Fox Body aftermarket and shared components. Its mechanical simplicity makes it DIY-friendly, reducing labor costs.
However, major issues like extensive rust repair or full restorations can become very costly. Overall, for a well-maintained example, the 1982 Mustang is an economical classic to own, provided you accept its fuel consumption and are prepared for age-related upkeep. It's less economical as a daily commuter than a modern, efficient vehicle.
Fuel costs will be higher than modern cars; the carbureted V8s average 15-20 MPG, while 4/6-cylinders are better but still not efficient. Maintenance and repair are generally inexpensive. Parts are plentiful and often cheap due to the massive Fox Body aftermarket and shared components. Its mechanical simplicity makes it DIY-friendly, reducing labor costs.
However, major issues like extensive rust repair or full restorations can become very costly. Overall, for a well-maintained example, the 1982 Mustang is an economical classic to own, provided you accept its fuel consumption and are prepared for age-related upkeep. It's less economical as a daily commuter than a modern, efficient vehicle.
1982 Ford Mustang Fuel Efficiency
Fuel Type
Gasoline
Fuel Capacity
-
City Mileage
-
Highway Mileage
-
1982 Ford Mustang Recalls & Defects
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
Recall date
2007-08-27
Recall no.
07e064000
Source
NHTSA
Summary
Certain Federal-Mogul Aftermarket Fuel Pumps Sold Under THE Brand Names OF Carter, Accuflow, Napa, Truflow, Parts Depo, and Parts Master, Shipped Between August 2006 and July 2007 FOR USE ON THE Vehicles Listed Above. THE Fuel Pump Diaphragm IN Certain Production Runs MAY Have Been Improperly Installed or Inadequately Tested Which MAY Cause THE Fuel Pump TO Leak.
Consequence
A Leaking Fuel Pump Could Create A Vehicle Fire Hazard.
Remedy
Federal-Mogul Will Notify Owners and Replace THE Defective Fuel Pumps Free OF Charge. THE Recall Began ON October 15, 2007. Owners CAN Contact Federal-Mogul AT 248-354-7700.
Notes
This Recall Only Pertains TO Aftermarket Carter, Napa, Accuflow, TRU Flow, Parts Master, and Parts Depot Brand Fuel Pumps and HAS NO Relation TO ANY Original Equipment Installed ON THE Listed Motor Vehicles.customers MAY Contact THE National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Vehicle Safety Hotline AT 1-888-327-4236 (Tty: 1-800-424-9153); or GO TO Http://Www.safercar.gov.
1982 Ford Mustang Warranty
Basic
Original warranty
0 months / No data
Estimated remaining
Expired
Powertrain
Original warranty
0 months / No data
Estimated remaining
Expired
Rust
Original warranty
0 months / No data
Estimated remaining
Expired
1982 Ford Mustang Insurance
Insurance for a 1982 Ford Mustang is moderately priced, reflecting its status as a Sedan with strong safety ratings and
reasonable repair costs.
reasonable repair costs.
How Does the 1982 Ford Mustang Compare to Other Sedan?
The 1982 Ford Mustang faced stiff competition, primarily from its domestic rivals: the Chevrolet Camaro Z28 and Pontiac Firebird Trans Am, both also in their third generation. It also competed with imported sports coupes like the Datsun 280ZX and, to a lesser extent, the Porsche 924.
Performance: The 1982 Mustang GT, with its 157 hp 5.0L HO V8, was a strong contender. It typically outpaced the Z28/Trans Am of the same year (which ranged from 145-165 hp, depending on exact engine/transmission, often a 5.0L Cross-Fire Injection V8) in terms of raw acceleration, thanks to its lighter curb weight. The Mustang GT could hit 0-60 mph in about 7-8 seconds, a notable feat for the era. The Datsun 280ZX offered a smoother, more refined ride with its inline-six but generally lacked the raw straight-line grunt of the V8 Mustang. The Porsche 924 (especially the non-turbo) was focused more on handling but significantly underpowered compared to the Mustang GT.
Features: All American pony cars offered similar, relatively sparse features for the time. Power windows, locks, and air conditioning were common options. The Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird were generally on par. Imported rivals like the 280ZX might have offered slightly more perceived build quality and refinement in their interiors, but at a higher price point.
Reliability: The Fox Body Mustangs and third-gen F-bodies (Camaro/Firebird) shared a reputation for generally robust V8 powertrains, though carbureted systems across the board could be finicky. Rust was a common enemy for all domestic cars of this era. Japanese rivals like the Datsun 280ZX often held an edge in overall build quality and resistance to rust, contributing to better long-term reliability in some aspects.
Price: The Mustang consistently offered excellent performance for the money. New prices were comparable to the Z28/Trans Am, typically under $10,000 for a performance model. The Datsun 280ZX was usually more expensive, and the Porsche 924 was in a higher price bracket altogether, making the Mustang a value leader in the performance segment.
Alternatives:
Performance: The 1982 Mustang GT, with its 157 hp 5.0L HO V8, was a strong contender. It typically outpaced the Z28/Trans Am of the same year (which ranged from 145-165 hp, depending on exact engine/transmission, often a 5.0L Cross-Fire Injection V8) in terms of raw acceleration, thanks to its lighter curb weight. The Mustang GT could hit 0-60 mph in about 7-8 seconds, a notable feat for the era. The Datsun 280ZX offered a smoother, more refined ride with its inline-six but generally lacked the raw straight-line grunt of the V8 Mustang. The Porsche 924 (especially the non-turbo) was focused more on handling but significantly underpowered compared to the Mustang GT.
Features: All American pony cars offered similar, relatively sparse features for the time. Power windows, locks, and air conditioning were common options. The Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird were generally on par. Imported rivals like the 280ZX might have offered slightly more perceived build quality and refinement in their interiors, but at a higher price point.
Reliability: The Fox Body Mustangs and third-gen F-bodies (Camaro/Firebird) shared a reputation for generally robust V8 powertrains, though carbureted systems across the board could be finicky. Rust was a common enemy for all domestic cars of this era. Japanese rivals like the Datsun 280ZX often held an edge in overall build quality and resistance to rust, contributing to better long-term reliability in some aspects.
Price: The Mustang consistently offered excellent performance for the money. New prices were comparable to the Z28/Trans Am, typically under $10,000 for a performance model. The Datsun 280ZX was usually more expensive, and the Porsche 924 was in a higher price bracket altogether, making the Mustang a value leader in the performance segment.
Alternatives:
- Chevrolet Camaro Z28 / Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (Third Gen): Excellent alternatives for those seeking similar V8 performance with different styling.
- Datsun 280ZX: A good choice if you prioritize refinement and handling over brute force, with potentially better long-term build quality.
- Porsche 924 / 944: For buyers willing to spend more for superior handling and European prestige, though often with less straight-line speed.
Final Verdict: Is the 1982 Ford Mustang a Good Sedan?
The 1982 Ford Mustang is an ideal vehicle for enthusiasts seeking an affordable entry into classic American muscle and pony car culture. It appeals strongly to DIY mechanics, tuners, and weekend cruisers who appreciate its straightforward mechanics, vast aftermarket support, and the nostalgic thrill of its 5.0L V8.
Is it worth buying? Absolutely, for the right buyer and under the right conditions. As a used vehicle, it represents a significant piece of automotive history and offers a raw, engaging driving experience often missing in modern cars. For optimal enjoyment and value, prioritize the GT trim with the 5.0L High Output V8; these models are more desirable and hold their value better. Avoid severely rusted or neglected examples unless you're planning a comprehensive restoration with a substantial budget.
It's not for those who prioritize modern safety, fuel economy, or creature comforts. It's a car to be driven, tinkered with, and enjoyed for its character and performance, making it a rewarding choice for the dedicated enthusiast.
Is it worth buying? Absolutely, for the right buyer and under the right conditions. As a used vehicle, it represents a significant piece of automotive history and offers a raw, engaging driving experience often missing in modern cars. For optimal enjoyment and value, prioritize the GT trim with the 5.0L High Output V8; these models are more desirable and hold their value better. Avoid severely rusted or neglected examples unless you're planning a comprehensive restoration with a substantial budget.
It's not for those who prioritize modern safety, fuel economy, or creature comforts. It's a car to be driven, tinkered with, and enjoyed for its character and performance, making it a rewarding choice for the dedicated enthusiast.
Cathleen V
Cathleen is an exceptional freelance writer covering hot topics in the automotive world from a gearhead's perspective. Her articles delve into various aspects of automotive technology and history, offering readers detailed insights into engine performance, reliability, and maintenance. Through her engaging and informative writing, Cathleen provides valuable information to automotive enthusiasts and consumers alike, helping them make informed decisions about vehicle maintenance and purchases.