Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/22/2004 8:15:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 8:15:41 AM EST by DriftPunch]
I stopped by a Home Depot over lunch today, and it just so happens that they were having a commercial truck sales-show. Well, as a hook, they also had a new black Mustang GT. I looked it over, and sat in the drivers seat. Externally, it's a VERY nice looking car, maybe the best mustang ever, although it could lose the goofy spoiler. Sure it's retro, but 'retro' styling can be a good thing as certain models were beautiful. If they retro'd it back to a '76 Mustang II, I'd have a problem.

As a critic, the things that were wrong tended to jump out at me.

- WTF were they thinking going retro with the guages. That is a HUGE turn off. They are too deeply inset into the dash as well. Modern guages please...

- Goofy bling-bling chromed plastic rings around the air vents.

- Dash too high & roof line too low. I've driven a last generation Mustang, and the roof line was low then as well, but the dash didn't seem as high. Another retro mistake...

- Zero back seat room. I'd rather have them kill the back seats and make a smaller overall interior or make a nice storage area than to throw in a useless back seat. Few buy a Mustang for the rear seat. Is there an insurance benefit here?

- Cheap weatherstripping. It won't be long before it starts to decay. I understand the need to have a pressure sealed frameless window in a car that has a convertable version, but a framed doors stripping lasts MUCH longer.

- PLASTIC intake plenum & a rubber intake path (I guess not much of a vacuum is excpected. Probably not problems, but looks cheap.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:30:33 AM EST
Zero back seat room. I'd rather have them kill the back seats and make a smaller overall interior or make a nice storage area than to throw in a useless back seat. Few buy a Mustang for the rear seat. Is there an insurance benefit here?


Yeah, 4 seaters are cheaper to insure than 2 seaters. All "real" sports cars are 2 seaters.

Besides, a really cramped backseat is the ultimate in retro-styling.

I can't wait until the local Ford dealer gets these in. I'm gonna' drool all over one, or more.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:32:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:
Zero back seat room. I'd rather have them kill the back seats and make a smaller overall interior or make a nice storage area than to throw in a useless back seat. Few buy a Mustang for the rear seat. Is there an insurance benefit here?


Yeah, 4 seaters are cheaper to insure than 2 seaters. All "real" sports cars are 2 seaters.

Besides, a really cramped backseat is the ultimate in retro-styling.

I can't wait until the local Ford dealer gets these in. I'm gonna' drool all over one, or more.



I don't know. I drooled on it from the outside, but inside was a big turn off...
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:32:46 AM EST
You might be able to get this one for a small discount - it only has some slight finish flaws:





Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:34:33 AM EST
Damn, that almost looks like it was crushed by the manipulation of the car carrier trailer. Very unusual damage...
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:35:02 AM EST
I'm looking forward to it as well.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:36:17 AM EST
If you get the chance, go for a ride in a 65 fastback or a 69 or 70 Mach 1 in the back seat. It's a retro tradition. You have to put one hand up against the ceiling to keep from bumping your head on a rough road. The new stang looks just like the right combination of 69 and 65. I'd love to have one.

Of course that's just me. I was fortunate enough to own a 66 and ride a lot in a 65 fastback and a 69 Mach 1 when I was a teenager.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:38:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
If you get the chance, go for a ride in a 65 fastback or a 69 or 70 Mach 1 in the back seat. It's a retro tradition. You have to put one hand up against the ceiling to keep from bumping your head on a rough road. The new stang looks just like the right combination of 69 and 65. I'd love to have one.

Of course that's just me. I was fortunate enough to own a 66 and ride a lot in a 65 fastback and a 69 Mach 1 when I was a teenager.



Giving you acne would also make it retro, but would it be better? Take the good, leave the bad...
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:39:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Engineer:
You might be able to get this one for a small discount - it only has some slight finish flaws:

img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/eywong/Mustang/3335-1097943937.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/eywong/Mustang/3335-1097944758.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/eywong/Mustang/post-7-1098016817.jpg



DOH! That didn't last long...
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:40:01 AM EST
I owned a 1970 Fastback with a 351C from 1980 until 1997. I was the third owner.

Damn I miss that car.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:40:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:



- PLASTIC intake plenum & a rubber intake path (I guess not much of a vacuum is excpected. Probably not problems, but looks cheap.



Weight savings, man. Why have a 20lb intake setup when a 5lb plastic/polymer job will do? It only needs to withstand heat from the lower intake manifolds or engine block, but with good thermally insulating spacers, the temperature of the intake may only get up to 120° or so. Plus plastic can be molded to give good space for air flow, rather than having to bore out a cast or forged peice.

Anyway... I can't comment on much else... My jury is still out on the new Mustang.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:50:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:



- PLASTIC intake plenum & a rubber intake path (I guess not much of a vacuum is excpected. Probably not problems, but looks cheap.



Weight savings, man. Why have a 20lb intake setup when a 5lb plastic/polymer job will do? It only needs to withstand heat from the lower intake manifolds or engine block, but with good thermally insulating spacers, the temperature of the intake may only get up to 120° or so. Plus plastic can be molded to give good space for air flow, rather than having to bore out a cast or forged peice.

Anyway... I can't comment on much else... My jury is still out on the new Mustang.



I'll cut a deal with Ford. Give me an aluminum plenum and take the 15 pounds back off by losing the spoiler.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:40:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Engineer:
You might be able to get this one for a small discount - it only has some slight finish flaws:

img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/eywong/Mustang/3335-1097943937.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/eywong/Mustang/3335-1097944758.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/eywong/Mustang/post-7-1098016817.jpg



Looks like light pole damage to me. Like he slid into one.

S.O.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:49:01 PM EST
The gauges are bad, but man o man it's gotta lose the wing!

I cringe every time I see one of those useless things, let alone on a car that is going for the clean style of 60's mustang fastbacks.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:55:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:59:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 9:02:41 PM EST by Dave_A]
Why, oh why, does Ford have to build such ugly cars...

In case you can't tell, I kind of missed the 60s by 20 years...

FORD, however, has been goofing up the exterior design of the Mustang since they decided to make it look like a goddanmn VOLKSWAGON...

I won't complain about how the 60's/70's cars looked, as ALL cars were 'aerodynamically deficient' back then, with huge ugly grilles, high riding positions, and such...

But between the Muscort/VWstang, and the 90's cars (which again looked like it should be a 4-door sedan), and now this throwback...

Why, oh why, are the only good looking US cars in production the absurdly expensive ones (the Corvette & Viper)????

Oh yeah, it's still SLOWER than a 2000 Formula Firebird... Pathetic, Ford has had 5 model years and they still can't beat the F in their regular lineup (The Cobra was no match for GM's SLP cars, which were the true competition)....
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 9:00:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By fike:
www.fordvehicles.com/2005mustang/images/pho/mst05_expopup_8.jpg



So now it looks like a Benz, instead of a VW...

Link Posted: 10/22/2004 9:01:48 PM EST
You know guys with that semi-fastback design it might just need that wing to keep the rear end from getting too light at high speeds, it's either a wing or a lip spoiler. The wing at least resembles early Mustangs, a lip spoiler wouldn't.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 9:23:42 PM EST
I think I'll stick with this one....

<--------------




Woody
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:06:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Oh yeah, it's still SLOWER than a 2000 Formula Firebird... Pathetic, Ford has had 5 model years and they still can't beat the F in their regular lineup (The Cobra was no match for GM's SLP cars, which were the true competition)....



Ford has no reason to make the Mustang faster than its competition, because it has outsold its competition by a large margin for 15 years or so.

No point in spending more money and raising costs when they dominated the $$$ end of it all, because that is all that matters to any company.

I'm a f-body fan all the way. But GM needs to learn to make a car that looks good again, while Ford needs to learn how to build a performer again.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:10:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By dskeet:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Oh yeah, it's still SLOWER than a 2000 Formula Firebird... Pathetic, Ford has had 5 model years and they still can't beat the F in their regular lineup (The Cobra was no match for GM's SLP cars, which were the true competition)....



Ford has no reason to make the Mustang faster than its competition, because it has outsold its competition by a large margin for 15 years or so.

No point in spending more money and raising costs when they dominated the $$$ end of it all, because that is all that matters to any company.

I'm a f-body fan all the way. But GM needs to learn to make a car that looks good again, while Ford needs to learn how to build a performer again.



HUGE +1

S.O.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:11:36 PM EST
Tell you what. If you don't like the new Mustang, STFU and buy a new F body. Oh, wait
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:16:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 10:18:31 PM EST by AR-15Fan]
While it's not going to beat the LS1 powered Fbodies (which lets face it, offered pretty phenomenial power for the price for a stock car, 300+ hp at the rear wheels with room to improve pretty decently with mild bolt ons) the newest Mustang at least IS a solid performer. A underrated 300hp (I saw around 265ish rwhp on a early dynotest I believe) is at least something respectable, unlike the previous GTs, especially for the pretty low price on these compared to any competition.

My thing is they look like a 4x4 with the 2 middle lights the GT gets, and the plain model looks too tame...

I'm depressed all around now that I've seen what the new Charger is looking like. Chevy better make the new Camaro in a hurry, and it better look badass... Otherwise I'm going to have to settle for a 05 or so GTO, which at least after the mild restyling and aggressive hood for 05 (400hp too...) looks decent....
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:37:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR-15Fan:
While it's not going to beat the LS1 powered Fbodies (which lets face it, offered pretty phenomenial power for the price for a stock car, 300+ hp at the rear wheels with room to improve pretty decently with mild bolt ons) the newest Mustang at least IS a solid performer. A underrated 300hp (I saw around 265ish rwhp on a early dynotest I believe) is at least something respectable, unlike the previous GTs, especially for the pretty low price on these compared to any competition.

My thing is they look like a 4x4 with the 2 middle lights the GT gets, and the plain model looks too tame...

I'm depressed all around now that I've seen what the new Charger is looking like. Chevy better make the new Camaro in a hurry, and it better look badass... Otherwise I'm going to have to settle for a 05 or so GTO, which at least after the mild restyling and aggressive hood for 05 (400hp too...) looks decent....



If they make a new Camaro, it had better have some semblance of aerodynamics...

Not every car customer was 16 in the late 60's, and has some odd affection for old fashioned designs...

Between that and Chrysler's fetish for 30's/40's design... UGH...

It's almost as bad as 'Roll back the clock' AR designs that put a gas piston on a gun specifically not designed to have one...
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:39:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 10:41:08 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Tell you what. If you don't like the new Mustang, STFU and buy a new F body. Oh, wait



Yeah, but a $15,000 used F-body will still beat that retro-abortion hands down...

As much as I'm glad Ponntiac has a V8 in the lineup again, the new GTO isn't really a looker either (again, it has the 'Where are the rear doors, and does it come with a roof-mounted DVD player?' look, WAYY too close to the 03-style Mustang)...

As for why Ford sold more Mustangs than GM sold F-bodies, I can't say... It certainly wasn't price, looks or performance...

Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:45:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
You know guys with that semi-fastback design it might just need that wing to keep the rear end from getting too light at high speeds, it's either a wing or a lip spoiler. The wing at least resembles early Mustangs, a lip spoiler wouldn't.



It doesn't produce any downforce. If it did Ford lawyers wouldn't allow the option to delete it.

As a side note, most newer high performance cars that produce useable downforce get it from underbody diffusers.

Link Posted: 10/22/2004 10:51:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Tell you what. If you don't like the new Mustang, STFU and buy a new F body. Oh, wait



Thats right, wait til 06 model year... MMM thats about 11 mo from now.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 11:58:21 PM EST
I love this thread already - Ovals versus bow-ties! Nothing changes and that's cool.

As for retro versus modern, I spent a big chunk of my $10,000 "shipping over" lump-sum tax-free cash on a brand new 69 Camaro 396SS and then spent the rest on parts. Ended up with a consistent 10.99 dial-in at OCIR and DROVE it there, jacked it up, stuck the little'ol street slicks on it, uncapped the puppy, and had to be careful of the breakout too. Pull the "putter" & injection off a newer car & try to match that with a carb and points/condenser. Those old beasts ROCK!

There, now we can have some ovals versus bow-ties and old versus new banter too. Aw hell enough hijacking.... Nah - one more jab - don't recall ever seeing a newer stock Camaro or TransAm (SS or F'bird) beat a stock Cobra either.

These days I'm in a 96 GT convertible and love it. Didn't like the half-assed square years but already promised to give this one to my son when I get my new one. I like the idea of deep-set instruments with FL sun & a convertible. We'll see. Also like the plastic air-box etc. but then it's hard to keep PVC from rusting here in FL so that just more of the "personal preference" things. Oh yes, did I say "I like retro" yet?

Link Posted: 10/23/2004 12:01:34 AM EST
FWIW, I don't like Mustangs or Camaros. I do like the LS1/LS2/LS6, but I'll take mine in a Vette, thank you.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 12:10:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 12:14:39 AM EST by 4get_No1]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
FWIW, I don't like Mustangs or Camaros. I do like the LS1/LS2/LS6, but I'll take mine in a Vette, thank you.



Damn it Jack - ya got some $ there. Want to share?

<ADD: I'll just take a pair of GTs - THX.>




Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:35:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By fike:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
You know guys with that semi-fastback design it might just need that wing to keep the rear end from getting too light at high speeds, it's either a wing or a lip spoiler. The wing at least resembles early Mustangs, a lip spoiler wouldn't.



It doesn't produce any downforce. If it did Ford lawyers wouldn't allow the option to delete it.

As a side note, most newer high performance cars that produce useable downforce get it from underbody diffusers.




Good point on the delete option.

It doesn't take much to cnacel lift though, they put a tiny spped actuated spoiler that deploys at 93mph on the turbo Beetle to cancel out lift. Just look at the beetles profile and you'll see why it needed one.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 1:12:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
FWIW, I don't like Mustangs or Camaros. I do like the LS1/LS2/LS6, but I'll take mine in a Vette, thank you.



Damn it Jack - ya got some $ there. Want to share?

<ADD: I'll just take a pair of GTs - THX.>







No, I couldn't afford a Vette, but you can get a new one for a little over $30k around here.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 2:47:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
FWIW, I don't like Mustangs or Camaros. I do like the LS1/LS2/LS6, but I'll take mine in a Vette, thank you.



Damn it Jack - ya got some $ there. Want to share?

<ADD: I'll just take a pair of GTs - THX.>








No, I couldn't afford a Vette, but you can get a new one for a little over $30k around here.




Wow. They get full price around here. GT's around 25-28 and Vetts.... Mmmm. Now that you mention it, I haven't looked lately. IIRC about 45-50 or so for a loaded convertible. Does that sound about right?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 3:00:00 PM EST
I actually like the fact that I love this car, and don't like certain things about it. Mustang's have a HUGE OEM market. Take of the spoiler, change the interior some, engine mods, etc, etc... It makes them all different and that is the great part of the whole thing.
Top Top