User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:09:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Really does look good in person. Design is growing on me.... Same here. No pictures can do it justice. This just may be my new favorite Mustang of the past 20 and maybe even 40 years. I am going to reserve final judgement until I test drive a couple different versions on Monday. Anyone who compares them to a Fusion must not have ever seen either car in person.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:55:19 PM EDT
[#2]
I figure 2 years out.
See what recalls and what parts fail. But i do want to get one if for no reason other than CAFE standards and the likely demise of big v8s eventually. May have to start a fund for a good sized down payment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:03:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Drove a GT 6 speed Thursday, no performance pack though
Must say it was awesome. Car came in to dealership the Saturday before I was the first one to test drive it too  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1674081_2015_Mustangs____Are_they_arriving_at_dealers_now_.html&page=3#i50129397 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 7:34:19 PM EDT
[#4]
The '11s-'14s are my favorite Mustangs of all time. Wish I could own one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 7:34:19 PM EDT
[#5]
The '11s-'14s are my favorite Mustangs of all time. Wish I could own one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 11:38:15 PM EDT
[#6]
News is the GT350 details will be released on Nov 17...
Oh this could be good. May need to start saving right the fuck now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2014 12:01:58 AM EDT
[#7]
$34k for ecoboost 4 cylinder version
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 3:26:33 PM EDT
[#8]
I rented a 2015 GT from Avis for a day a couple weekends ago in Orlando. It was an auto w/ 3.15:1 gears, but it was nice. I agree that the interior is very nice. It was pretty cool being the only 2015 on the road
 , put 300 miles on it.
ETA to add pics and a link to the window sticker of the one I rented: http://fordlabels.webview.biz/webviewhybrid/windowsticker.aspx?vin=1FA6P8CF8F5312430 
Also Florida roads suck, there are no corners.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 5:26:41 PM EDT
[#9]
IF I were to buy one, sticker price on the one I built was $43k.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 7:00:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IF I were to buy one, sticker price on the one I built was $43k. Join the Mustang Club of America and get an X Plan PIN code. You are supposed to join something like 6 months in advance though. But you can save $2K-$3K after the dealership starts tacking on fees. But by the time you are ready, they may be willing to cut some deals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 7:09:23 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Join the Mustang Club of America and get an X Plan PIN code. You are supposed to join something like 6 months in advance though. But you can save $2K-$3K after the dealership starts tacking on fees. But by the time you are ready, they may be willing to cut some deals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IF I were to buy one, sticker price on the one I built was $43k. Join the Mustang Club of America and get an X Plan PIN code. You are supposed to join something like 6 months in advance though. But you can save $2K-$3K after the dealership starts tacking on fees. But by the time you are ready, they may be willing to cut some deals. I didn't know the performance pack was available. When I build one under the X plan site, it never gives me the option to choose the performance pack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 8:36:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't know the performance pack was available. When I build one under the X plan site, it never gives me the option to choose the performance pack. Just build one from the Ford site then go to your dealer and order one and show them your X plan PIN http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-Mustang#/ChooseYourPath/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2014 10:42:23 PM EDT
[#13]
I have a 2011 GT 6-speed but am seriously tempted to upgrade. I live in the city now and would really prefer the independent rear suspension and auto trans. Don't think I can justify the cost though, as I wouldn't want to downgrade from a GT premium.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 12:46:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't know the performance pack was available. When I build one under the X plan site, it never gives me the option to choose the performance pack. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IF I were to buy one, sticker price on the one I built was $43k. Join the Mustang Club of America and get an X Plan PIN code. You are supposed to join something like 6 months in advance though. But you can save $2K-$3K after the dealership starts tacking on fees. But by the time you are ready, they may be willing to cut some deals. I didn't know the performance pack was available. When I build one under the X plan site, it never gives me the option to choose the performance pack. Only available with 6-speed manual. If you choose the auto, you wont be able to select the pp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 2:37:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Judging by those pictures, I think the new 'Stang isn't nearly as good looking inside or out as the '11-'14.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 3:33:22 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Judging by those pictures, I think the new 'Stang isn't nearly as good looking inside or out as the '11-'14. The interior hasn't changed much, and the performance pack Recaro seats are great! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 4:14:25 AM EDT
[#17]
So Nissan/Infiniti is making the Mustang now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 7:09:14 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Nissan/Infiniti is making the Mustang now? No, but Nissam is making the Porsche..
. . . I can see how you would make that inference based on the fact that both cars have 2 doors, 4 wheels and of course the door mounted rear view mirrors...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 7:16:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Looks like an MR2
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 7:38:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like an MR2 Porsche and Toyota have had close ties since around the time that Germany bombed Pearl Harbor, so it is natural that there would be similarities between the MR2 and the 911... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 8:17:49 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So Nissan/Infiniti is making the Mustang now?    |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 8:32:38 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but Nissam is making the Porsche..
http://userratings.kbb.com/3872api/500113/photo.jpg http://images.dealer.com/ddc/vehicles/2014/Porsche/Cayman/Coupe/perspective/front-left/1603_36.png . . . I can see how you would make that inference based on the fact that both cars have 2 doors, 4 wheels and of course the door mounted rear view mirrors... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So Nissan/Infiniti is making the Mustang now? No, but Nissam is making the Porsche..
http://userratings.kbb.com/3872api/500113/photo.jpg http://images.dealer.com/ddc/vehicles/2014/Porsche/Cayman/Coupe/perspective/front-left/1603_36.png . . . I can see how you would make that inference based on the fact that both cars have 2 doors, 4 wheels and of course the door mounted rear view mirrors... Same windows, same roofline, 10-spoke wheels, same short rear deck... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 8:44:29 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same windows, same roofline, 10-spoke wheels, same short rear deck... I believe I understand the problem now. Here.. Try these and perhaps you will see that they are not at all similar... . .  ..
. . . 
. . Seriously though, the real issue appears to be wishful thinking and projection to some extent. Neither the side windows, the roof line nor the rear deck are even remotely similar. The Mustang wheels are a modified 5 spoke design. The Mustang rear deck actually reminds me more of the 1971-1973 Mustang rear window than the 2005-2014 Mustang it replaced. It is actually appears more long and more gradually sloping in comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 8:54:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Yeah... not seeing any similarity between the styling of the Inifinite and the Mustang. Nice try though
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 9:01:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Try these 2 pics. I have seen both cars in person and can tell you that they are not even remotely similar. The infinity seems stubby like a Porsche and the Mustang as I mentioned seems long and more drawn out like its 71-73 Mustang siblings.
. . . . . 
. . . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 9:05:18 AM EDT
[#26]
Still not seeing it. Mustang has a longer hood, a "flat" front rather than rounded nose, sleeker roof line, flat rear bumper. Maybe the only thing they share is the angled tail lights but even then they look nothing alike
And yes, I've seen both as well as driven a 2015 GT track pack. Awesome car. Makes me want to sell my 06. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 9:08:27 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still not seeing it. Mustang has a longer hood, a "flat" front rather than rounded nose, sleeker roof line, flat rear bumper. . . Here is what I am comparing it to in a general sense... . . 
. . .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 12:59:17 PM EDT
[#28]
saw a 2015 in person a couple weeks back and it is much better looking in person. Its a badass car but im still liking the 11-14 better. I cant stand the 05-09.
I still cant part with my fox though... my favorite of all time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 1:16:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still cant part with my fox though... my favorite of all time. I am definitely partial to the Fox, but now we have to compete with the Brand X guys who are putting LSx engines in them because they are light and so easy to work on. The used market is getting thinner and thinner with clean examples. Too many people have smashed them or done rattle can paint jobs or they have rusted away. I spent 2 months and drove in a 200 mile radius looking at misrepresented junk or over priced cars before I gave up and bought a 1999 GT. As soon as I did that, 2 nice ones popped up within my budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 3:45:01 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 5:26:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. Here is what I am comparing it to in a general sense... . . http://remarkablecars.com/wiki/images/thumb/8/84/04810-1971-mustang-boss-1713.jpg/600px-04810-1971-mustang-boss-1713.jpg . . . http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5LaWzAVJ--/b2zae4gipvyiyk3gvoza.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Still not seeing it. Mustang has a longer hood, a "flat" front rather than rounded nose, sleeker roof line, flat rear bumper. . . Here is what I am comparing it to in a general sense... . . http://remarkablecars.com/wiki/images/thumb/8/84/04810-1971-mustang-boss-1713.jpg/600px-04810-1971-mustang-boss-1713.jpg . . . http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5LaWzAVJ--/b2zae4gipvyiyk3gvoza.jpg LOL - the only things those 2 cars have in common is that they're both red & they're both made by Ford. A buddy of mine had one of those Mach 1's in high school - ugly car. The 1st generation Mustang was much better - they should have used that as a model to retro. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 6:37:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL - the only things those 2 cars have in common is that they're both red & they're both made by Ford. A buddy of mine had one of those Mach 1's in high school - ugly car. The 1st generation Mustang was much better - they should have used that as a model to retro. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Still not seeing it. Mustang has a longer hood, a "flat" front rather than rounded nose, sleeker roof line, flat rear bumper. . . Here is what I am comparing it to in a general sense... . . http://remarkablecars.com/wiki/images/thumb/8/84/04810-1971-mustang-boss-1713.jpg/600px-04810-1971-mustang-boss-1713.jpg . . . http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5LaWzAVJ--/b2zae4gipvyiyk3gvoza.jpg LOL - the only things those 2 cars have in common is that they're both red & they're both made by Ford. A buddy of mine had one of those Mach 1's in high school - ugly car. The 1st generation Mustang was much better - they should have used that as a model to retro.  Also, sure you're not just jealous of your buddies car? Then again given what you think looks alike your perception is already suspect. Also, that "ugly Mach1 from highschool" IS a first generation Mustang, so by your own logic, your buddies ugly car should be used as a model to retro.... Unless you mean the first years of production, in which case mostly women bought those, so if you want a modern Mustang to be a chick car, then it has merit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 6:58:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A buddy of mine had one of those Mach 1's in high school - ugly car. The 1st generation Mustang was much better - they should have used that as a model to retro. I also have to assume what you actually mean is the first couple years of production which was marketed as a secretary's car and used the Falcon chassis (already outdated even by 1965 standards) with the only V8 initially offered in it being a 260 CID engine with an earth shaking 164 Horsepower. It was a cheap pony car for the masses and it did a great job filling this role. The 1971 was a significantly updated design and with its optional 429 engine was the quickest Mustang off of the showroom floor until the 2003 Cobra came out. The Fox body with all its rattles and spartan interior was more in line with the tone of the 1965 Mustang. I grew up driving 1965-73 Mustangs and I am certainly glad that the Mustang has evolved to where it is today. The 2015 Mustang GT is the first one which can do more than go in a straight line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 9:43:14 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also have to assume what you actually mean is the first couple years of production which was marketed as a secretary's car and used the Falcon chassis (already outdated even by 1965 standards) with the only V8 initially offered in it being a 260 CID engine with an earth shaking 164 Horsepower. It was a cheap pony car for the masses and it did a great job filling this role. The 1971 was a significantly updated design and with its optional 429 engine was the quickest Mustang off of the showroom floor until the 2003 Cobra came out. The Fox body with all its rattles and spartan interior was more in line with the tone of the 1965 Mustang. I grew up driving 1965-73 Mustangs and I am certainly glad that the Mustang has evolved to where it is today. The 2015 Mustang GT is the first one which can do more than go in a straight line. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A buddy of mine had one of those Mach 1's in high school - ugly car. The 1st generation Mustang was much better - they should have used that as a model to retro. I also have to assume what you actually mean is the first couple years of production which was marketed as a secretary's car and used the Falcon chassis (already outdated even by 1965 standards) with the only V8 initially offered in it being a 260 CID engine with an earth shaking 164 Horsepower. It was a cheap pony car for the masses and it did a great job filling this role. The 1971 was a significantly updated design and with its optional 429 engine was the quickest Mustang off of the showroom floor until the 2003 Cobra came out. The Fox body with all its rattles and spartan interior was more in line with the tone of the 1965 Mustang. I grew up driving 1965-73 Mustangs and I am certainly glad that the Mustang has evolved to where it is today. The 2015 Mustang GT is the first one which can do more than go in a straight line. The only straight line stuff is bullshit in my opinion. Are they perfectly planted exotics or even spunky little "only known for handling" momentum cars like a miata? No. But my SN95 is plenty quick after tweaking and my SN197 is even more poised. Dont give two fucks about the straight rear axles. My cars both get on it and the fact that they are not "refined" or civilized is part of their charm. Mustang 6g is reporting road and track has put the sn550 up in a top 3 best of year behind the Porsche GT3 and ahead of a Ferrari. It is a huge leap for sure. Their track test put it more than a 1 1/2 second lap time faster than the out going Boss 302. But the Boss 302 was still "fast". The car is definitely the most refined of any mustang to come along but that is true of every generation. Fox to SN95, improved. SN95 to sn197, improved. Huge handling, chassis, interior improvement. SN197 4.6 3v to the Coyote, improved. Both powertrain and interior. From what I have witnessed Ford has simply kept the momentum going. This splitting hairs over some minor shit reminds me of the crap ass stupid bragging about one AR over another AR where it is down to things like plastic trigger guard over metal or 1:9 twist over 1:7. Fact is I am the "get both" guy. 2 projects going at once is gonna make getting a 2015 Perf Pack a bit difficult. The most interesting part of the SN550 for me right now is the interior, saw my 2nd one today and was again impressed by the interiror. And monday is news of the GT350. Rumor going through the mill with a friend who races and has sponsorships is the GT350 may be twin turbo car. May have some weight given teaser videos have ford guys talking about turbo technology leaving an impression on them. I gotta get down and test drive a Perf Pack car soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 10:11:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only straight line stuff is bullshit in my opinion. But my SN95 is plenty quick after tweaking and my SN197 is even more poised. Dont give two fucks about the straight rear axles. My cars both get on it and the fact that they are not "refined" or civilized is part of their charm. I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say with your long rant. What "minor shit" are you referring to? When we compare some generations it is not at all like "plastic trigger guard vs metal or 1 in 9" vs 1 in 7", it is like comparing a Hi Point carbine to a FN SCAR.  We can "only" go back to the 2003 Cobra for comparison which was a monster in the world of Mustangs at the time. they went for about $35K. For $35K today, you can get a GT with the "GT Performance Package" and run circles around that Cobra in a straight line and in the corners. This fact and the fact that it also beats a Boss 302 which was $10K more 2 years ago are huge reasons to praise it and give it all of the massive credit it is due.
My point is that the plain old Mustang GT has been sucking hind tit since 1964 calendar year. Granted, each generation has had marked improvements. They have always come up short in the twisties except for relatively expensive low/limited production number versions like the Boss 302 most recently. When I was 30 years younger and throughout the years for the most part, I did not care about its shortcomings. I had plenty of fun driving my Mustangs. I was happy to run low 11s in a straight line and was not concerned about twisties. I still own a 1971 Mach 1, a 1983 Capri 5.0, a 1991 LX 5.0 and a 1999 GT. This is the first New Mustang I have been really excited about in a very long time. I am no longer willing to tolerate mediocre handling when the Camaro has been kicking the Mustang's ass in that department so thoroughly. That gap has closed to the point that it is irrelevant to me. The fact that the Mustang can come so close to the Camaro's track performance yet retain its comfort on "normal" Main Street USA bumpy roads is the most impressive thing about it. The Camaro will beat you to death. I am actually considering selling my 1971 so that I can afford to purchase a new 2015 and drop a blower on it right away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 11:33:46 PM EDT
[#37]
I think "fast" for the mustang was for a long time a carry over from the muscle car era.
Handling was secondary and most mods were the result of those focused on straight line. Both my 95 and 05 handle turns quite well. Not stock but the 95 is racing inspired and the 05 is Boss 302 inspired. The parts list and mods exist to make handling/turning mustangs a reality. The 2015 may be the best handling yet but whether I have my 95, 05, or a 15 on the back roads, it is sanity that will bring them all to within a cunts hair of eachother. These are foot hills and mountain roads that amount to over grown bike paths. Havent gone beyond the limits of the handling of either car because sanity keeps me from coming close to fully exploring it. On the track? Since I am footing the bill there will be a practical limit as well. So in the end? Faster when it comes to track times are based off professional drivers or youtube videos with nothing but bragging rights. Might as well be a Nissan GTR being thrown about as being "better" than my 95, 05, or even 15. You might get a 2015 but the only place you might likely see it regularly being "faster" is still stop light to stop light. Especially if you are throwing a blower on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 12:14:27 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both my 95 and 05 handle turns quite well. Not stock but the 95 is racing inspired and the 05 is Boss 302 inspired. The parts list and mods exist to make handling/turning mustangs a reality. You might get a 2015 but the only place you might likely see it regularly being "faster" is still stop light to stop light. Especially if you are throwing a blower on it. What I believe that you are saying is that neither you nor I will ever get the maximum performance from a 2015 on the Street so it is not a big deal how awesome the 2015 handling truly is, or that you can take a previous generation Mustang and throw some money at it if you want tighter handling. I understand what you are saying but I do not believe you understand my goals. What I want to do is make it a street/strip/track car. I have Elkhart Lake Road America pretty close to me in addition to two 1/4 mile drag strips. I also like to visit other States with my cars for racing events. The fact that I do not have to "mess with" the stock suspension which means that it will retain 100% of its original ride quality is a HUGE attraction to me. I have "been there, done that" with taking a perfectly good handling car and modifying the suspension for either drag racing or twisties. In both cases, the ride quality was severely compromised. I will still have my older Mustangs for that, so I want the more refined performance which the 2015 Mustang finally offers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 1:33:45 AM EDT
[#39]
I doubt I will drive the 2015 much if I get one.
I too have a couple tracks and it is the reason behind why I am building my cars. Willow Springs, Buttonwillow, Famoso 1/4 mile, two air strips for 1/2 mile and full mile as well as auto cross. That is just my county alone. The ride quality issues I actually admire the points. My 95 is a bit gokart like but it is part of its charm. I want to relocate the front A-arms and rear control arm pivots for a bit better geometry but for now it is what it is. But handling wise I like where it is at and I like the feel as I put the screws to it. As for track cars, I am of the opinion of being okay breaking something but hopefully not wrecking something. My older cars are less prized and if I am going to the limit I would be much more likely to do it in one of them than with a new 2015. I am fair bit away from being in 2015 territory. But I would be able to live with reduced handling, even if somewhat marginal in my hands, than abusing the shit out of a 2015. I gotta get in a 2015 soon. My thinking is I may just do a rental for a few days as opposed to trying to get everything out of a test drive. May get to test drive a perf pack car but probably not for long enough or get to push it much. I hope to be at the Silver State Classic in 2016. The 95 is the car I prefer to take but it could wind up being the 05 that goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 5:43:21 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only straight line stuff is bullshit in my opinion. Are they perfectly planted exotics or even spunky little "only known for handling" momentum cars like a miata? No. But my SN95 is plenty quick after tweaking and my SN197 is even more poised. Dont give two fucks about the straight rear axles. My cars both get on it and the fact that they are not "refined" or civilized is part of their charm. Mustang 6g is reporting road and track has put the sn550 up in a top 3 best of year behind the Porsche GT3 and ahead of a Ferrari. It is a huge leap for sure. Their track test put it more than a 1 1/2 second lap time faster than the out going Boss 302. But the Boss 302 was still "fast". The car is definitely the most refined of any mustang to come along but that is true of every generation. Fox to SN95, improved. SN95 to sn197, improved. Huge handling, chassis, interior improvement. SN197 4.6 3v to the Coyote, improved. Both powertrain and interior. From what I have witnessed Ford has simply kept the momentum going. This splitting hairs over some minor shit reminds me of the crap ass stupid bragging about one AR over another AR where it is down to things like plastic trigger guard over metal or 1:9 twist over 1:7. Great post. The only cars I've ever owned were Mustangs ('75, '80, '85, '87) and up until '99 I drove virtually every single Mustang model ever built, save for the heavy-hitters of the late '60s like the Boss 302 and 429. 302s, 289s, 2.3L fours, 2.8L sixes, 3.0L sixes, 3.8L sixes, 2.3L turbos, 4.9L sixes, 5.0Ls, 4.6Ls, 5.4Ls (no, that's not a mistake), I've driven pretty much all of them. When I finally sold my '87, it went to a collector. Mustangs were never about "cutting edge" anything. They were about styling that was different than anything else, they were about being affordable, they were (sometimes) about brute power. They were never about hanging with high-dollar sports cars in the twisties. Heck, they weren't even necessarily intended to hang with Camaros in the turns. Ford's legacy with the Mustang was simply about selling a relatively inexpensive powerful car that looked pretty cool, handling and brakes notwithstanding. Ford has definitely gone in a new direction with this new Mustang, that's for sure. I'm not convinced it's a good move on Ford's part, given how refined the SRA ended up being by the time it was scrapped. It was still a good "bang for the buck" car right up until now. We'll see how sales go with this new model and its IRS. Of course, it still has the Coyote going for it, which is a phenomenal engine in a Pony Car application. FWIW, the most amazing Mustang I ever drove was an '86 SVO. I literally almost pissed myself while driving it. The salesman wasn't so lucky. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 6:22:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mustangs were never about "cutting edge" anything. They were about styling that was different than anything else, they were about being affordable, they were (sometimes) about brute power. They were never about hanging with high-dollar sports cars in the twisties. Heck, they weren't even necessarily intended to hang with Camaros in the turns. Ford's legacy with the Mustang was simply about selling a relatively inexpensive powerful car that looked pretty cool, handling and brakes notwithstanding. Mustang's benefited from the total performance era of Ford and got a lot of the cutting engine engine tech, as well as suspension and braking. Ford had to sell homolgamation models so a lot of the race tech even if watered down made it to production cars... Just like it always has. My 72 Mach1, and especially the 71' Boss 351 would argue the supposition Ford didn't care about handling, braking, or cutting edge engine tech. The 351C defined emerging engine technology at the time. A 351 that could hang with big blocks on NASCAR tracks? The 71 Boss 351 if you read a lot of the reviews when it came out was compared to actual stock cars of the time. Pretty wild. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 6:49:39 PM EDT
[#42]
From Job 1 in 1964, the Mustang was not about "brute power". The 428CJ, Boss 429 (ridiculous low production numbers) , 429SCJ and Boss 351 were the only engines with any notable power ever to grace the engine bay of the Mustang until 2003 when the 4.6 finally got some nuts. Every other engine was almost pitiful in comparison to the competition. That means that from 1972 to 2002 the factory supplied Mustang power was meh at best. What made the Fox bodied 5.0 a success was the light weight and good response to modifications with stellar aftermarket support. The 5.0 Ford really knocked the SBC off of its pedestal. The 1971-73 Mustang finally got a respectable power steering gear box geometry but really did not have a suspension to compliment/support it in the twisties. The 351C was a less than perfect execution of a pretty good idea. In order to "hand with the big blocks", the exhaust ports were lopped off and port plates were added. The block was a step backwards from the solid 351W block. In order to be competitive, NASCAR heads became only loosely based on the 351C canted valve design and the blocks were based on the 351W.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 6:54:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ehhhh..... Mustang's benefited from the total performance era of Ford and got a lot of the cutting engine engine tech, as well as suspension and braking. Ford had to sell homolgamation models so a lot of the race tech even if watered down made it to production cars... Just like it always has. My 72 Mach1, and especially the 71' Boss 351 would argue the supposition Ford didn't care about handling, braking, or cutting edge engine tech. The 351C defined emerging engine technology at the time. A 351 that could hang with big blocks on NASCAR tracks? The 71 Boss 351 if you read a lot of the reviews when it came out was compared to actual stock cars of the time. Pretty wild. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mustangs were never about "cutting edge" anything. They were about styling that was different than anything else, they were about being affordable, they were (sometimes) about brute power. They were never about hanging with high-dollar sports cars in the twisties. Heck, they weren't even necessarily intended to hang with Camaros in the turns. Ford's legacy with the Mustang was simply about selling a relatively inexpensive powerful car that looked pretty cool, handling and brakes notwithstanding. Ehhhh..... Mustang's benefited from the total performance era of Ford and got a lot of the cutting engine engine tech, as well as suspension and braking. Ford had to sell homolgamation models so a lot of the race tech even if watered down made it to production cars... Just like it always has. My 72 Mach1, and especially the 71' Boss 351 would argue the supposition Ford didn't care about handling, braking, or cutting edge engine tech. The 351C defined emerging engine technology at the time. A 351 that could hang with big blocks on NASCAR tracks? The 71 Boss 351 if you read a lot of the reviews when it came out was compared to actual stock cars of the time. Pretty wild. Sure, there have been special edition Mustangs from time to time that were...special. Having said that, 95% of the Mustang market has always been about low cost, cool looks, and (sometimes) lots of power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 7:27:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure, there have been special edition Mustangs from time to time that were...special. Having said that, 95% of the Mustang market has always been about low cost, cool looks, and (sometimes) lots of power. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Sure, there have been special edition Mustangs from time to time that were...special. Having said that, 95% of the Mustang market has always been about low cost, cool looks, and (sometimes) lots of power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 9:30:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Went and sat in a 2015 Ecoboost optioned out premium today.
Interior is definitely NICE. Dont like the "smart key" push button start crap, like really dont like it. Prefer key in ignition and more importantly key to accessory to unlock the steering wheel, as in you can turn ignition off yet sti have steering. Back seats are a joke. Sure they look bigger than an SN95 or SN197 but space between seats is less in driving position of SN550 than others. Dont like all the tech gadgets, dont need touch screen/bluetooth/whatever. Comfort was best of any stang ever though. I am 6ft 3in and 250-260. In my SN95 and SN550 my knees are CLOSE to the dash, like proper performance driving position is tricky between getting chest/arms close enough to steering wheel without legs bumping dash. Much better leg/knee clearance to dash. If I can get one to rent I may take a weekend trip in one and see if I can flog it a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 9:32:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Looks like a nasty Hyundai Genesis. As usual, Ford screws up another nice looking car.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 9:47:13 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From Job 1 in 1964, the Mustang was not about "brute power". The 428CJ, Boss 429 (ridiculous low production numbers) , 429SCJ and Boss 351 were the only engines with any notable power ever to grace the engine bay of the Mustang until 2003 when the 4.6 finally got some nuts. Every other engine was almost pitiful in comparison to the competition. That means that from 1972 to 2002 the factory supplied Mustang power was meh at best. What made the Fox bodied 5.0 a success was the light weight and good response to modifications with stellar aftermarket support. The 5.0 Ford really knocked the SBC off of its pedestal. The 1971-73 Mustang finally got a respectable power steering gear box geometry but really did not have a suspension to compliment/support it in the twisties. The 351C was a less than perfect execution of a pretty good idea. In order to "hand with the big blocks", the exhaust ports were lopped off and port plates were added. The block was a step backwards from the solid 351W block. In order to be competitive, NASCAR heads became only loosely based on the 351C canted valve design and the blocks were based on the 351W. Dont forget the Cobra R in 93, 351 in 95, and 5.4 in 00. May have been limited production runs, not all went to collectors and straight racers, so there were returns to percormance based stangs. Also had both Saleen and Steeda get in on the mix. While I wasnt a fan of every Saleen the 351 based cars are still high on my list of love to owns, a lowish mikes blown 351sr is for sale for 25k in the bay area. Also saw a rare Steeda car in the area up there as well. 2003/4 Terminators werent entirely the only game. Not in my opinion at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 10:37:37 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dont forget the Cobra R in 93, 351 in 95, and 5.4 in 00.. I purposely left them out. The '93 Cobra R was not a more powerful engine. The 1995 Cobra R with the 351 was nothing special either. It was a pedestrian 351W rated at only 300HP. The 2000 Cobra R is really the only one worth mentioning. With its 380HP and 380 lb-ft of troque, it was the hottest Mustang engine in 29 years but it was so limited production and expensive that it was and still is out of reach for most people. Technically it fits the category of "notable power" but I ignored it because of its rarity. A Saleen Mustang with a blower of the same vintage was more readily available and affordable. The 2003-2004 Terminator was the first mass produced Mustang in decades with an engine which made notable power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 10:40:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Comfort was best of any stang ever though. I am 6ft 3in and 250-260. In my SN95 and SN550 my knees are CLOSE to the dash, like proper performance driving position is tricky between getting chest/arms close enough to steering wheel without legs bumping dash. Much better leg/knee clearance to dash.. Sounds like Ford's mission was accomplished... This is finally a Mustang they can market globally and be proud doing so in the ranks of the competition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2014 2:20:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I purposely left them out. The '93 Cobra R was not a more powerful engine. The 1995 Cobra R with the 351 was nothing special either. It was a pedestrian 351W rated at only 300HP. The 2000 Cobra R is really the only one worth mentioning. With its 380HP and 380 lb-ft of troque, it was the hottest Mustang engine in 29 years but it was so limited production and expensive that it was and still is out of reach for most people. Technically it fits the category of "notable power" but I ignored it because of its rarity. A Saleen Mustang with a blower of the same vintage was more readily available and affordable. The 2003-2004 Terminator was the first mass produced Mustang in decades with an engine which made notable power. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Dont forget the Cobra R in 93, 351 in 95, and 5.4 in 00.. I purposely left them out. The '93 Cobra R was not a more powerful engine. The 1995 Cobra R with the 351 was nothing special either. It was a pedestrian 351W rated at only 300HP. The 2000 Cobra R is really the only one worth mentioning. With its 380HP and 380 lb-ft of troque, it was the hottest Mustang engine in 29 years but it was so limited production and expensive that it was and still is out of reach for most people. Technically it fits the category of "notable power" but I ignored it because of its rarity. A Saleen Mustang with a blower of the same vintage was more readily available and affordable. The 2003-2004 Terminator was the first mass produced Mustang in decades with an engine which made notable power. In the case of the 95 Corba R, a 300hp 351 was pretty damn good for a factory offering from that time. Heads/intake/cam could take it further but from the factory it was pretty good. Hell my poor 95 is lucky if it is 240rwhp right now after cam/headers minus a tune. Mean while look at current V6 output, even a damn KIA has more base horsepower. The 00 Cobra R was entirely different though. Really hope one day to see one up close. There was a 95 R that got wrecked here in CA and the owner swapped everything over to a ordinary 95 Cobra while adding a blower. Thing could actually get smog cert and pass CARB inspection. If I didnt have my current 95 it would have been mine, 10-11k was worth it to me. In the end, not enough time/money for all the damn cars I want to add to the stable. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
