PDA

View Full Version : Ugliest Year for Ford Mustang?


Mangosteen
09-30-2010, 05:40 PM
What year did Ford put out its ugliest Mustang?

I understand that years ago they produced some nasty looking cars.

Please supply photos if you can.

Johnny L.A.
09-30-2010, 05:51 PM
1974-1978 Mustang II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Mustang_II_(Centropolis_Laval_%2710).jpg).

E-Sabbath
09-30-2010, 06:29 PM
Aw, Johnny beat me to it.

monstro
09-30-2010, 06:30 PM
I drive a '93 Ford Mustang.

When I tell people this, they usually shake their heads in pity.

NDP
09-30-2010, 06:44 PM
1974-1978 Mustang II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Mustang_II_(Centropolis_Laval_%2710).jpg).

Not only nasty looking but a real defect-prone POS. A perfect example of a big corporation trying to improve a great product and ending up ruining it.

ExTank
09-30-2010, 06:46 PM
I dunno; I thought the angular, slab-sided look from the late 80s - early 90s was pretty horrific.

Tangent
09-30-2010, 07:01 PM
Yeah, I always hated the Mustangs of the 80's.

Here is one example. (http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/244/3101/25609050003_large.jpg)

My dad had a '66 Mustang that was in great condition until my sister wrecked it in '88, about two years before I would have been old enough to drive it. :(

Cuckoorex
09-30-2010, 07:10 PM
Another vote for the 80's look that Tangent posted. I drove a '75 Mustang for a year or so in high school (it had been my Mom's car before) and it was a POS 4-banger, but it didn't look ugly so much as it was just a powerless pile of metal. Those 80's Mustangs (http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2124/2601/30308800001_large.jpg) are just an eyesore, though...

fiddlesticks
09-30-2010, 07:10 PM
I agree with Tangent...that era's hatchback looking thing had no business carrying the name Mustang.

Tim R. Mortiss
09-30-2010, 07:14 PM
1974-1978 Mustang II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Mustang_II_(Centropolis_Laval_%2710).jpg).

I disagree that they were ugly in those days, but they certainly were steaming piles of crap. I had a 1978 for a few years, and it sucked in all possible mechanical ways. I think under the sheet metal it was really just a Pinto. But I still thought it was cute.

kunilou
09-30-2010, 07:49 PM
As a tie-breaker, I suggest comparing either the late 1970s or 1980s versions of the Mustang with the Ford Fairmont (http://hotrod.com/eventcoverage/113_0310_100_years_ford_motor_company/photo_13.html)-- surely the nadir of the company's styling efforts.

Looks to me like the 80's edge out the 70's on plain, straight sheet metal.

GameHat
09-30-2010, 08:06 PM
I'm gonna go against the popular opinion here and say that I thought the 4th Generation Mustangs (94-04) (http://google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,25260,26714,26781,26799&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=4th+generation+mustang&cp=17&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=857) were unconscionably ugly.

It's supposed to be a muscle car. Why were they trying to make it look like a sedan? Ugh. No personality whatsoever.

My 2007 GT (http://s689.photobucket.com/albums/vv256/GameHat/?action=view&current=Mustang.jpg), however, is beautiful. :D

E-Sabbath
09-30-2010, 09:17 PM
The II looked like a Stang sucking a Pinto, man.

missred
09-30-2010, 09:44 PM
The eighties: Mustang, the ugly years.

Musicat
09-30-2010, 09:54 PM
1974-1978 Mustang II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Mustang_II_(Centropolis_Laval_%2710).jpg).Hey! I had one of those!

Sold it after a year. It drove like a tank and crapped out on me frequently even during the warranty period. A real dog, not a horse.

Johnny L.A.
09-30-2010, 10:27 PM
I disagree that they were ugly in those days... I still thought it was cute.

I disagree with your disagreement. I remember walking home from school (back when kids were allowed to walk alone) and there was a '70 Mustang Mach II parked along the way that I'd pass every day. I thought it was the coolest Mustang ever. When the Mustang II came out, I was like, 'What? That isn't a Mustang! :eek: ' I couldn't believe what they did to a great car. I just found it ugly. (Of course by the time I got out of high school they'd stopped making them that way; but it didn't matter because I got a hand-me-down '66 MGB.)

Airman Doors, USAF
09-30-2010, 10:32 PM
The 1980s Mustangs were not as much ugly as they were nondescript. The Mustang IIs, however, had no redeeming value whatsoever (http://thetruthaboutcars.com/curbside-classic-fords-deadly-sin1-1975-mustang-cobra-ii/). Hideous, underpowered (even for that time) pieces of garbage.

JohnT
09-30-2010, 10:47 PM
Back in the '70s, Lee Iacocca, President of Ford Motor Company, introduced the Profit Improvement Program, aimed at increasing gross margins on all cars sold.

This program rewarded people for removing standard features from vehicles, as well as incentivized them to continually rework the cars so that they used less (or less expensive) materials.

So the hood ornament disappeared, saving $20 per car. Floormats became an option. Engines grew weaker and materials were thinner and more prone to failure (think Pinto gas tanks). Profits were improved all up and down the Ford product line, so much so that PIP became a verb: "I pipped $45 off the '76 Mustang by going with plain tires instead of white walls." "Cool. I pipped $95 off the Lincoln by making the back leg-room 2 inches shorter."

It wasn't just that the US auto industry slid into decline in the 1970's, they aggressively pursued short-sighted strategies such as PIP, which left them with a severe qualitative gap (real and perceived) to Japanese competitors, an image that American companies are still struggling to overcome.

And it's interesting that the man who appeared on the covers (http://themustangsource.com/mine/toys/) of both Time and Newsweek magazines (and in the same week, nonetheless!) for being the head of the Mustang project was the same person who did his best to kill the Mustang in the 1970's.

Hippy Hollow
09-30-2010, 11:04 PM
Interesting. But why didn't Ford go Thunderbird and basically remake the classic version? Everyone on the planet agrees that the 66-72 models were the dog's bollocks.

Airman Doors, USAF
09-30-2010, 11:08 PM
Interesting. But why didn't Ford go Thunderbird and basically remake the classic version? Everyone on the planet agrees that the 66-72 models were the dog's bollocks.

They did. the new one couldn't look more like a '66 if they simply started making '66 Mustangs again. Of course, DOT regulations made them adjust a bit, but Jesus, if you can't see the obvious styling cues you're blind.

Cisco
10-01-2010, 12:46 AM
The Mustang IIs, however, had no redeeming value whatsoever (http://thetruthaboutcars.com/curbside-classic-fords-deadly-sin1-1975-mustang-cobra-ii/). Hideous, underpowered (even for that time) pieces of garbage.
Damn, I really like that.

clarkstar
10-01-2010, 02:06 AM
1974-1978 Mustang II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Mustang_II_(Centropolis_Laval_%2710).jpg).
zactly! what were they thinking? although u throw a 351 in one of those and its not so ugly ;)

clarkstar
10-01-2010, 02:12 AM
i think the 2005+ are the best loookign since the 69-70 my brother had a 79 pace car (http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7726/1979mustangpace.jpg)and it wasnt too bad

bouv
10-01-2010, 11:23 AM
I'm gonna go against the popular opinion here and say that I thought the 4th Generation Mustangs (94-04) (http://google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,25260,26714,26781,26799&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=4th+generation+mustang&cp=17&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=857) were unconscionably ugly.

It's supposed to be a muscle car. Why were they trying to make it look like a sedan? Ugh. No personality whatsoever.

My 2007 GT (http://s689.photobucket.com/albums/vv256/GameHat/?action=view&current=Mustang.jpg), however, is beautiful. :D

I'm not a big car guy, but I agree.

At least the 80's ones had some kind of style....granted, it was 80's style, but whatever.

But the mid-90's to mid-2000's Mustangs were as bland as white bread, crust removed. I guess that was the trend for every car in those days, but there's a fundamental difference in doing that to something like a minivan, sedan, or station wagon, and then doing it to a Mustang. I remember the first time I saw the "new classic" Mustangs (2005 and on) I was like,

"Holy shit, the Mustang is cool again!"

DJ Motorbike
10-01-2010, 12:07 PM
The even-numbered generation Mustangs suck.

Avoid these:

Generation 2 1974-1978
Generation 4 1994-2004

I have every reason to suspect that Ford will continue this trend.

Emily Litella
10-01-2010, 01:11 PM
I'm also going to vote for the 1974-1978 Mustangs. My first car was a '65 Mustang (this was in 1976) and a friend of mine owned a 1980 Mustang and they weren't bad.
On the other hand, my favorite Mustang is the fastback Steve McQueen drove in Bullitt.

Miss Woodhouse
10-01-2010, 09:48 PM
My neighbor has a convertible later 80's Ford Mustang. It's red. He washes it every Saturday, gives it a loving wax and shows all evidence of excessive pride in his vehicle.

I just have to snicker. That ain't no Mustang. That's a stupid budget compact with a horse on the grill.

Spud
10-02-2010, 02:55 PM
My 2007 GT (http://s689.photobucket.com/albums/vv256/GameHat/?action=view&current=Mustang.jpg), however, is beautiful. :D

I have to say that is the second most beautiful car I've ever seen.

-Spud (owner of an '06 Vista Blue GT Convertible) :D

ExTank
10-02-2010, 07:01 PM
Okay, car-folk, here's something I need answered:

A guy I work with claims that the Mustang was actually introduced in 1955 for one model year and then discontinued until 1964.5, when it was reintroduced.

I've never heard this, and have been unable to corroborate this with any kind of Google-fu.

Spud
10-02-2010, 07:21 PM
'55 was the Futura concept, which is best known as the Batmobile. '62 was the first "Mustang" but it is closer related to the GT40.

Johnny L.A.
10-02-2010, 07:28 PM
The Mustang I prototype was designed in 1961 and unveiled in 1962.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1965-ford-mustang-prototypes1.htm

Jormungandr
10-03-2010, 03:46 AM
Every time I see an 80s Mustang, early 80s Datsun pops in my head

Shirley Ujest
10-03-2010, 07:10 AM
I use to work with a lady who promised her children if they got all A's in High school they could pick any car that Ford made as theirs. Dad worked for Ford.

Both picked Mustangs. The daughter graduated in 91 ish and her car was fugly as sin and I always felt bad.

Her brother graduated a few years later and the car was redesigned and marketedly improved.

Jack Batty
10-03-2010, 08:08 AM
I always loved Mustangs. In the 5th grade, like '75, I had a major crush on my teacher, and she drove a Mach I Fastback (http://allfordmustangs.com/photopost/data/3234/medium/1971FordMustangMach1FastbackRearSide.jpg). That was the coolest car I ever saw.

Then the 80's turned Mustangs (http://image.mustangmonthly.com/f/9185909/mump_0711_01_z+1985_ford_mustang_twister+photo.jpg) into Bobcats (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4678609500_d2079cb43e.jpg). The 80's did the same thing for music, by the way.

But now they're back looking cool. I managed to snag a 2007 (http://byzan.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ford-mustang-v6-coupe.jpg)last year. I'm no longer dirt poor, but I'm still not quite to the "I'll buy a brand new GT" level yet, so mine is a used V6 version ... but damn, it still looks cool.

FordTaurusSHO94
10-03-2010, 01:06 PM
I've owned an 03 GT and an 07 GT and rode home from the hospital in an 83 GT when I was born. The 79-04 are pretty much the same car. You can swap drive train, suspension, and several other pieces between them. They are easy to work on easy to improve or turn into race cars. The 05+ are the most refined. They handle and accelerate better than any Mustang ever made. They're so comfortable though, that you don't feel how fast they are. Even after mods, they don't feel as "raw" as I think a performance car should. They're great daily drivers though. Comfortable, fast, fun, and great gas mileage.

My personal favorite is the 03-04 Mach 1. Suspension, 4.30 gears, and slicks turn it into an 11 second car. The big hole in the hood and the shaker hood scoop are also cool.

My next "Mustang" will be a Factory Five Roadster with a Mach 1 drive train.

divemaster
10-03-2010, 09:52 PM
Y'all are raggin' on the 80's Mustangs. But my dad had a '89 GT convertable that was really good-looking and fast as hell. It had the state trooper modification (basically, the governer disabled). My god that car was fast and powerful and turned a lot of heads.

FordTaurusSHO94
10-03-2010, 10:13 PM
In my rambling, I forgot it was about the ugliest Mustang. Not a fan of the 94-98 Mustang, though the Cobras do look alright.

squeegee
10-03-2010, 10:42 PM
Screw all of you 80's haters! I had a '89 and was happy with it: $13k brand-new with a 5 liter V8, holy sh*t! That car roared, and was way fun to drive. Also, a lot of the boxy ugliness of the early-80's had been smoothed out by '89, but I bought the car for how it drove, not how it looked.

Magiver
10-04-2010, 01:39 AM
1974-1978 Mustang II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Mustang_II_(Centropolis_Laval_%2710).jpg).

I disagree that they were ugly in those days, but they certainly were steaming piles of crap. I had a 1978 for a few years, and it sucked in all possible mechanical ways. I think under the sheet metal it was really just a Pinto. But I still thought it was cute. I too don't think they were the ugliest but I refer to them as Rustangs. The nice thing about them was that they weighed 2800 lbs with the 302 and air conditioning. They even had staggered shocks which worked well for drag racing and the 8" posi and C4 would stand up to 300+hp reasonably well. The factory brakes were worthless and would not work if asked to at 130 mph.

unwashed brain
10-04-2010, 10:42 AM
1980. It looks like a Dodge Aries coupe, which is quintessentially the antithesis of a Mustang.

http://mustangview.com/1980-ford-mustang.html

Aries coupe (bottom of the page)
http://chryslerkcar.com/

control-z
10-04-2010, 11:09 AM
1980. It looks like a Dodge Aries coupe, which is quintessentially the antithesis of a Mustang.

http://mustangview.com/1980-ford-mustang.html



Agreed. But there were a lot of coupes with that general shape after the Mustang did it. Not sure if Mustang was really first or not.

I think the GTs/Cobras of any generation aren't bad looking. The true crime is the lethargic 70's/80's Mustangs. Especially the 4-cylinder ones. Now the current low-end Mustang has a 300 HP V6 that gets 30+ MPG. After owning 2 V8 Mustangs, I could actually see myself owning a V6 now.

Cisco
10-04-2010, 11:16 AM
1980. It looks like a Dodge Aries coupe, which is quintessentially the antithesis of a Mustang.

http://mustangview.com/1980-ford-mustang.html

Jumpin' Jesus, we have a winner!

Who the hell got ready to roll that out and said, "wait'll they get a load of this."

SpartanDC
10-04-2010, 11:41 AM
My mom had one of those hatchback Mustang... things. I hesitate to call it a car.

I'm not a car guy in the least, but every time I walk past a post-2005 Mustang, Van Halen's "Panama" starts playing in my head and I'm overcome by a desire to drive that car. Very, very fast. What a gorgeous mixing of the old with the new.

Vicki
09-15-2012, 06:37 PM
I have to admit...there were some pretty ugly Mustangs in the '80's. I think they were trying to emulate the Ford EXP....not a good decision.

Musicat
09-15-2012, 06:42 PM
Viki, welcome to SDMB, but you are posting in a 2 year old thread. We call that a "zombie." It might be a good idea to keep an eye on the date in the future, but don't let that deter you from posting!

-- ex-Mustang owner, the Fugly Years.

ElvisL1ves
09-15-2012, 06:43 PM
Not only nasty looking but a real defect-prone POS. A perfect example of a big corporation trying to improve a great product and ending up ruining it.
Not so much "improve" as react to market shifts, namely the jump in gas prices following the Arab oil embargo. Detroit reacted by trying to simply make smaller, lamer versions of the same stuff they'd been used to making, not by actually trying to make decent fuel-efficient cars from the ground up.

The Mustang II was a low-quality, rusty, unreliable, weak POS, but then so was pretty much any Detroit product from the 70's and 80's.

GreasyJack
09-15-2012, 07:59 PM
I'm surprised nobody voted for the '71-73s. They had the gigantic motors, but aesthetically they'd completely deviated from the pony car concept and were well on their way to following the T-bird into bloated full-size coupe territory. The Mustang II was actually truer to the original Mustang concept, but failed in execution like so much else Detroit attempted at the time. The downsize was much maligned, but I doubt a Mustang the size of a '73 with smog-choked engine options would have been much better received.

Cub Mistress
09-15-2012, 08:17 PM
My cousin-in-law had a 75 Mustang that I rode around it a fair bit. It was a total piece of shit, we dumped our cigarette ashes on the floorboards because the ashtray was totally useless. This was the least of the sins Ford perpetrated on the hapless public with that car. Totally underpowered and no sex appeal.

Magiver
09-15-2012, 08:30 PM
I'm surprised nobody voted for the '71-73s. They had the gigantic motors, but aesthetically they'd completely deviated from the pony car concept and were well on their way to following the T-bird into bloated full-size coupe territory. The Mustang II was actually truer to the original Mustang concept, but failed in execution like so much else Detroit attempted at the time. The downsize was much maligned, but I doubt a Mustang the size of a '73 with smog-choked engine options would have been much better received. The Mustang II actually changed the front end enough from 74 to 75 to allow for a 5.0 liter engine. It still had no power but none of the other engines of that era did either. Throw a cam in it and some headers and it got out of it's way. A 5.0 hatchback with A/C weighed under 2900 lbs.

If they weren't such complete rust buckets they would still be around as easily modified cars. I'm surprised that got out the factory door without requiring bondo.

GreasyJack
09-15-2012, 09:10 PM
The Mustang II actually changed the front end enough from 74 to 75 to allow for a 5.0 liter engine. It still had no power but none of the other engines of that era did either. Throw a cam in it and some headers and it got out of it's way. A 5.0 hatchback with A/C weighed under 2900 lbs.

If they weren't such complete rust buckets they would still be around as easily modified cars. I'm surprised that got out the factory door without requiring bondo.

Yeah, whereas the '73s were almost two tons-- imagine a wheezy smog-era V8 trying to push one of those around and Ford calling it a "sports car" with a straight face. In retrospect, people laugh about them being based on the Pinto, but that's not that different from the original Mustangs being based on the Falcon. The other thing people forget about the Mustang II is that they were actually pretty well received at the time and sold significantly better than the last 1st generations they replaced.

Kenm
09-15-2012, 09:34 PM
The eighties: Mustang, the ugly years.I bought an '84 GT new, black inside and out, with removable glass tops.

I sold it six or seven years later after 432,000 kilometres and change, or 268,000 miles, give or take, when I broke my clutch leg.

I drove it coast to coast in two countries and up and down and all around the continent in three, with its only failure on those trips a leaking rad somewhere near Minneapolis, swapped out in 30 minutes or so. Three of us (including Bruce the Mustang) even had an earthquake in San Diego.

It was a great car. I shoulda kept it.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-15-2012, 09:44 PM
My 2007 GT (http://s689.photobucket.com/albums/vv256/GameHat/?action=view&current=Mustang.jpg), however, is beautiful. :D

That's a great color, but I wasn't a big fan of that particular set of wheels.

i think the 2005+ are the best loookign since the 69-70

Absolutely. I think the 2005-2009 models recaptured the old Mach I/Boss Mustang look better than any other retro new musclecar save perhaps the latest iteration of the Challenger. The Charger (until the cosmetic re-do) and the new Camaro are fugly cars.


I have to say that is the second most beautiful car I've ever seen.

-Spud (owner of an '06 Vista Blue GT Convertible) :D

No, it's the THIRD most beautiful you have seen, until you take a gander at my 2008 GT Premium in vapor metallic paint:

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/MyCar001.jpg

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/002-1.jpg

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/004-2.jpg

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/MyCar002.jpg

Especially when compared to what I used to drive:

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/PA240013.jpg

Zombie threads about Mustangs are awesome!

I have to vote for the Mustang II. Its not just ugly, its a completely anemic POS excuse for a pony car.

Although I do have to say that I am not a huge fan of the styling direction the 2010-onwards models have taken. While the new 5.0 motor is utterly badass and the sequential taillights are cool, I dislike the plasticky rear end on these newer Stangs, and I don't like the way they've re-shaped the front end, either. I really like that chopped-off, boxy look of the '05-'09 Mustangs for pure retro look in a modern package.

Now if I can just figure out a way to shoehorn a Coyote 5 litre motor and the 6 speed tranny into my budget and into my car, I'll be all set!

:D

missred
09-15-2012, 10:19 PM
I bought an '84 GT new, black inside and out, with removable glass tops.

I sold it six or seven years later after 432,000 kilometres and change, or 268,000 miles, give or take, when I broke my clutch leg.

I drove it coast to coast in two countries and up and down and all around the continent in three, with its only failure on those trips a leaking rad somewhere near Minneapolis, swapped out in 30 minutes or so. Three of us (including Bruce the Mustang) even had an earthquake in San Diego.

It was a great car. I shoulda kept it.

An ex-boyfriend had an '84 convertable. Not a bad driving car but nothing like my old '69. And for anything good about it, it was still, aesthetically ugly. :p

Kenm
09-15-2012, 10:30 PM
An ex-boyfriend had an '84 convertable. Not a bad driving car but nothing like my old '69. And for anything good about it, it was still, aesthetically ugly. :pThat's because you're looking back on it from 2012, surrounded by gorgeous Fiat 500s and Honda Fits.

missred
09-15-2012, 10:36 PM
That's because you're looking back on it from 2012, surrounded by gorgeous Fiat 500s and Honda Fits.

And the newer retro body styles of Mustang. :p

Kenm
09-15-2012, 10:52 PM
And the newer retro body styles of Mustang. :pAlas, it out-retros retro (http://kbb.com/ford/mustang/2012-ford-mustang/).Refusing to give up its solid rear axle design, Ford has created for the 2012 Mustang an inexpensive rear suspension that performs quite well and is as comfortable in cruise...In other words, the rear end still hops sideways on bumps.

Not that it bothered me. You'd know how much it would jump, cheating on sharp corners by making it easier to aim. :D

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-15-2012, 11:30 PM
Alas, it out-retros retro (http://kbb.com/ford/mustang/2012-ford-mustang/).In other words, the rear end still hops sideways on bumps.

Not that it bothered me. You'd know how much it would jump, cheating on sharp corners by making it easier to aim. :D

Not really. They have come up with some amazing controls to halt that wheel hop you mention. And for 2013/2014, they are finally getting rid of it altogether. Its definitely old school technology, but the solid "live" rear axle has helped to keep the Mustang's price low. And its utterly predictable to drive, too. There are ways around it for owners like myself that care to invest the money.

FordTaurusSHO94
09-16-2012, 01:14 AM
In my rambling, I forgot it was about the ugliest Mustang. Not a fan of the 94-98 Mustang, though the Cobras do look alright.

Ha! Had to quote myself here, as I purchased a 98 Cobra not too long after this post...

FordTaurusSHO94
09-16-2012, 01:19 AM
Not really. They have come up with some amazing controls to halt that wheel hop you mention. And for 2013/2014, they are finally getting rid of it altogether. Its definitely old school technology, but the solid "live" rear axle has helped to keep the Mustang's price low. And its utterly predictable to drive, too. There are ways around it for owners like myself that care to invest the money.

2013 still has the solid axle and there's no indication of a redesign for 2014. 2015 is expected to get a new platform, but nobody knows about the drive train yet.

Magiver
09-16-2012, 02:21 AM
2013 still has the solid axle and there's no indication of a redesign for 2014. 2015 is expected to get a new platform, but nobody knows about the drive train yet. They're going to a live axle when they dump the retro look in 2015 (http://insideline.com/ford/mustang/2015/2015-ford-mustang-will-shed-retro-skin.html).

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-16-2012, 05:17 AM
They're going to a live axle when they dump the retro look in 2015 (http://insideline.com/ford/mustang/2015/2015-ford-mustang-will-shed-retro-skin.html).

Ugh. That's not a Mustang, that's a Jaguar!

That car might get my vote as the ugliest Mustang, not because its necessarily ugly per se, but it just doesn't say "Mustang" to me.

And I was off by a year or two on the independent rear suspension. I knew I had read it was coming down the pike at some point, but I'd rather they keep the live rear axle if it means not sacrificing the soul of the car.

Magiver
09-16-2012, 11:25 AM
Ugh. That's not a Mustang, that's a Jaguar!

That car might get my vote as the ugliest Mustang, not because its necessarily ugly per se, but it just doesn't say "Mustang" to me.

And I was off by a year or two on the independent rear suspension. I knew I had read it was coming down the pike at some point, but I'd rather they keep the live rear axle if it means not sacrificing the soul of the car. I was thinking more Maserati (didn't Ford use to own that). I'm not sure that's the actual design. I like that they plan to round out the body curves instead of the hard edges seen on the 2012 design. I would imaging that there will be some "Mustang" traits to the final design.

missred
09-16-2012, 11:32 AM
They're going to a live axle when they dump the retro look in 2015 (http://insideline.com/ford/mustang/2015/2015-ford-mustang-will-shed-retro-skin.html).

Good lord, does that car look like it's fixin' to whoop some ass! It doesn't look like the current crop, but I do like the style.

Magiver
09-16-2012, 12:01 PM
OK, maybe that is the design. Different view of the same car (http://digitaltrends.com/cars/2015-ford-mustang-speculation-begins-with-sexy-new-renderings/).

you can still see some pony in this. Quite a change. I'd like to see it in black.

Johnny L.A.
09-16-2012, 12:40 PM
On Yahoo today, 10 Wimpiest Muscle Cars Ever (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/10-wimpiest-muscle-cars-ever.html?page=1)

On the first page, the 1978 Ford Mustang King Cobra.
Ford's legendary performance car hit its nadir with the downsized Pinto-based Mustangs of 19741978, called Mustang II. Although this generation of Mustang came with a V-8, it was a 302 cid V-8 with a mere 139 hp. Yes, you read that right. Second-gen Mustangs pumped out just 19 more hp than you'd get from the 1.6-liter four-cylinder in today's Ford Fiesta.

But that's not the most embarrassing part of the Mustang II... <snip>

Magiver
09-16-2012, 01:07 PM
On Yahoo today, 10 Wimpiest Muscle Cars Ever (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/10-wimpiest-muscle-cars-ever.html?page=1)

On the first page, the 1978 Ford Mustang King Cobra. A Fiesta weighs 600 lbs more. And for the price of a cam and some headers you had an easy 300 hp Mustang. It was a 100 mph car in the 1/4 mile. Yes it was a rusting cheap POS but at 300 hp it was 1 hp per 9.7 lbs. It also had staggered shocks on the back so it was a good launching car on the track.

Johnny L.A.
09-16-2012, 01:19 PM
I'm not sure such changes were legal for a street car in California at the time.

Magiver
09-16-2012, 01:29 PM
I'm not sure such changes were legal for a street car in California at the time. probably not in Ohio either but it's not quite the nanny state as CA. In fact, we got rid of the EPA checks because they were a waste of time. People were burning gas on an unnecessary trip to prove that a computer continually tunes a car every second it's driven.

The 70's and 80's must have sucked in CA.

Johnny L.A.
09-16-2012, 01:45 PM
I was driving a '66 MGB in the early-'80s, so I didn't have the EPA rules to worry about. No smog equipment on my car, so I got the full 95 hp.

Spud
09-17-2012, 08:33 AM
No, it's the THIRD most beautiful you have seen, until you take a gander at my 2008 GT Premium in vapor metallic paint:


Ok, sure... yours can be second. :p

I just don't get you hard top guys... it's like having a hot girlfriend but you can't take her top off.

Kenm
09-17-2012, 08:58 AM
I just don't get you hard top guys... it's like having a hot girlfriend but you can't take her top off.Unlike cars, when you take her top off, she won't give you MELANOMA!

Always slather on sun block before pressing the retract button. Or drive topless only at night.

But remember, you're still a target for meteorites.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-17-2012, 09:10 AM
OK, maybe that is the design. Different view of the same car (http://digitaltrends.com/cars/2015-ford-mustang-speculation-begins-with-sexy-new-renderings/).

you can still see some pony in this. Quite a change. I'd like to see it in black.

OK, now I like this variant a lot more than the red one. They aren't really the same car. The hood is different, and so is the grille, fog lights, side mirrors....and on this one, I quite like that rear end! It doesn't really scream "Mustang" to me but I still think it looks cool.


Ok, sure... yours can be second. :p

I just don't get you hard top guys... it's like having a hot girlfriend but you can't take her top off.

I've never been much of a convertible guy. Plus hardtops handle better. I also like the seamless look having a roof the same color as the rest of the car.

Spud
09-17-2012, 12:54 PM
I've never been much of a convertible guy. Plus hardtops handle better. I also like the seamless look having a roof the same color as the rest of the car.

A front strut bar makes a world of difference in body flex so the handling difference is small at worst.

As long as the top is down (most of the time)... there is no difference in roof color. :)

Plus I get to drive the beauty queens in the parades.

ministryman
09-17-2012, 02:00 PM
1974-1978 Mustang II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Mustang_II_(Centropolis_Laval_%2710).jpg).

+1!!! Mustang my ass. More like the Ford Gelding line....

FordTaurusSHO94
09-17-2012, 02:26 PM
A front strut bar makes a world of difference in body flex so the handling difference is small at worst.

Welded in sub-frame connectors make the biggest difference, depending on the year. If you're talking about 05 or later cars, they don't really need sub-frame connectors or strut tower bars. For coupes at least, I'm not sure about convertibles. I remember reading somewhere that the stock 05+ chassis was something like 30% stiffer than a Fox chassis with a 6-point cage.

I hope if the new ones are IRS, they don't wheel hop. I'd prefer a solid axle though.

Spud
09-17-2012, 02:52 PM
If you're talking about 05 or later cars, they don't really need sub-frame connectors or strut tower bars. For coupes at least, I'm not sure about convertibles.

I've got an '06 convertible and trust me... they need the strut bar. There are some rail road tracks that run at an angle and before my strut bar, if I hit them at any speed the car was all over the place. No issue at all after adding the bar.

FordTaurusSHO94
09-17-2012, 04:22 PM
The 04 and under coupes were like that! They've come a long way since the Fox chassis.

Magiver
09-17-2012, 06:55 PM
+1!!! Mustang my ass. More like the Ford Gelding line....
I had one that looked like that and I had one like this (http://google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://allfordmustangs.com/photopost/data/3235/medium/100_0171.JPG&imgrefurl=http://allfordmustangs.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/53570&h=600&w=800&sz=465&tbnid=dZjyxP8Dnbrk5M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=123&zoom=1&usg=__0OQJ7V-B1d_Sb0NczX0bi_5Ivzs=&docid=cAvPSM_3saHAFM&sa=X&ei=NrdXUOuFLoePyAGrqYG4Ag&ved=0CCgQ9QEwAg&dur=689) with a shaker hood scoop. It was fun to drive. The sedan version should never have been made.

Magiver
09-17-2012, 07:01 PM
I've never been much of a convertible guy. Plus hardtops handle better. I also like the seamless look having a roof the same color as the rest of the car. I've never understood the love of convertibles either unless you're in a parade. I HATE the rag top look and just don't see the thrill in driving with the noise and the sun beating down on you.

Dread Pirate Jimbo
09-17-2012, 07:16 PM
I'm surprised nobody voted for the '71-73s. They had the gigantic motors, but aesthetically they'd completely deviated from the pony car concept and were well on their way to following the T-bird into bloated full-size coupe territory. The Mustang II was actually truer to the original Mustang concept, but failed in execution like so much else Detroit attempted at the time. The downsize was much maligned, but I doubt a Mustang the size of a '73 with smog-choked engine options would have been much better received.

I have to agree with this.

The 71-73 (http://fordmustangmania.com/images/1971mustang-coupe.jpg) models were a total departure from the original design and, while the Mustang II might have been a POS, it at least bore more than a passing resemblance to the 60s model, if more cartoonish.


My 2007 GT (http://s689.photobucket.com/albums/vv256/GameHat/?action=view&current=Mustang.jpg), however, is beautiful. :D


No, it's the THIRD most beautiful you have seen, until you take a gander at my 2008 GT Premium in vapor metallic paint:

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/MyCar001.jpg

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/002-1.jpg

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/004-2.jpg

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/MyCar002.jpg

Especially when compared to what I used to drive:

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/sgenetti77/PA240013.jpg


Both very nice looking cars!

I actually prefer that body design very slightly to that of my 2012. But gosh, my baby (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d24/Calgaryjimbo/HPIM6990.jpg) sure is shiny! :)

River Hippie
09-17-2012, 08:00 PM
Worst...late seventies.
Best...1969.
Runners up for best...1967,1968,1970.

sparky!
09-17-2012, 08:49 PM
I had a '68 in highschool.

In my opinion, '67 & '68 were the best looking.

jz78817
09-18-2012, 09:19 AM
I was thinking more Maserati (didn't Ford use to own that). I'm not sure that's the actual design.

It isn't, that's the "Evos" concept from a couple of years ago.

Spud
09-18-2012, 01:39 PM
I've never understood the love of convertibles either unless you're in a parade. I HATE the rag top look and just don't see the thrill in driving with the noise and the sun beating down on you.

If I didn't know better, I'd start to think there were people with totally different opinions on this board.

Unless it is raining or under freezing, the top isn't up on my car. What you call noise, I call the wind in your hair... the sounds around you... like the birds singing (ok, who am I kidding, the engine revving).

Sun beating down on you??? Have you not noticed that people like to bask in the sun? We have entire states that depend on this desire for their economy.

As far as the look of a rag top... all I can think about when I see one with the top up is how much fun that would be when the weather is nicer.

Oh, and parades... I'll be in one this Friday.

Dread Pirate Jimbo
09-18-2012, 05:01 PM
If I didn't know better, I'd start to think there were people with totally different opinions on this board.

Unless it is raining or under freezing, the top isn't up on my car. What you call noise, I call the wind in your hair... the sounds around you... like the birds singing (ok, who am I kidding, the engine revving).

Sun beating down on you??? Have you not noticed that people like to bask in the sun? We have entire states that depend on this desire for their economy.

As far as the look of a rag top... all I can think about when I see one with the top up is how much fun that would be when the weather is nicer.

Oh, and parades... I'll be in one this Friday.

Up here in Canadia, half the year is spent in weather conditions not conducive to driving with the top down. As a result, I've never seen it as at all sensible to have a convertible. Plus, to be honest, the wind in my hair while driving just annoys me. But I don't begrudge people who do like that kind of thing. :)

Spud
09-18-2012, 05:44 PM
As a result, I've never seen it as at all sensible to have a convertible.

Sensible... I thought we were talking about small two door cars with a tiny back seat, a small trunk, and 300+ HP under the hood. Sensible doesn't enter the equation. :)

Mine normally goes under the car cover around Thanksgiving (late November for you Canadians) and comes out sometime in March. My "winter" car is a 4WD Blazer.

I've been caught a couple of times driving it when I was at work and unexpected bad weather came in. Driving with no weight in the back of a rear wheel drive, high HP/high torque car with performance tires on ice is a scary thing.

Sensible... that word doesn't belong in this thread. :)

Magiver
09-18-2012, 06:10 PM
If I didn't know better, I'd start to think there were people with totally different opinions on this board.:)

Unless it is raining or under freezing, the top isn't up on my car. What you call noise, I call the wind in your hair... the sounds around you... like the birds singing (ok, who am I kidding, the engine revving).

Sun beating down on you??? Have you not noticed that people like to bask in the sun? We have entire states that depend on this desire for their economy. people don't bask in the sun in their cars. They roll up the window and turn on the air conditioner. The same applies to the "sounds of nature" which in a car is usually accompanied by the sounds of other cars. That's why God invented the car stereo.

As far as the look of a rag top... all I can think about when I see one with the top up is how much fun that would be when the weather is nicer.

Oh, and parades... I'll be in one this Friday. yah, we knew it was parades all along. You're not foolin anyone. ;)

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-18-2012, 06:17 PM
If I didn't know better, I'd start to think there were people with totally different opinions on this board.

Unless it is raining or under freezing, the top isn't up on my car. What you call noise, I call the wind in your hair... the sounds around you... like the birds singing (ok, who am I kidding, the engine revving).

Sun beating down on you??? Have you not noticed that people like to bask in the sun? We have entire states that depend on this desire for their economy.

As far as the look of a rag top... all I can think about when I see one with the top up is how much fun that would be when the weather is nicer.

Oh, and parades... I'll be in one this Friday.

Another thing for me is blaring the radio. As it's a badass Mustang (Black Sunshine, Eleanor, whatever) I require high volume Devil music to be blasting through the (admittedly somewhat weak compared to aftermarket) Shaker audio system while driving. Usually Black Sabbath, System Of A Down, or something equally menacing. A convertible would drown a lot of that out with wind noise.

Spud
09-18-2012, 06:49 PM
people don't bask in the sun in their cars.

Oh, I do... I normally drive in my gold lame Speedo... oiled up with the seat totally reclined.

wait... I just got a message I'm not invited to drive in the parade anymore.

Spud
09-18-2012, 07:07 PM
Another thing for me is blaring the radio. As it's a badass Mustang (Black Sunshine, Eleanor, whatever) I require high volume Devil music to be blasting through the (admittedly somewhat weak compared to aftermarket) Shaker audio system while driving. Usually Black Sabbath, System Of A Down, or something equally menacing. A convertible would drown a lot of that out with wind noise.

What... do you guys think the normal features of a car suddenly stop working when the top is down? 90 degrees with a nice 40 degree blast from the AC is amazing... even better is 40 degrees and driving through the fall colors in Southern Indiana with a 75 degree blast coming through the vents.

As for my Shaker 500... with Jimmy Buffet blasting my wife was smiling so big she didn't even realize the speedo was over 100. (clearly it is totally out of wack since the legal posted speed limit is 65). ;)

Dread Pirate Jimbo
09-18-2012, 07:32 PM
Sensible... I thought we were talking about small two door cars with a tiny back seat, a small trunk, and 300+ HP under the hood. Sensible doesn't enter the equation. :)

Mine normally goes under the car cover around Thanksgiving (late November for you Canadians) and comes out sometime in March. My "winter" car is a 4WD Blazer.

I've been caught a couple of times driving it when I was at work and unexpected bad weather came in. Driving with no weight in the back of a rear wheel drive, high HP/high torque car with performance tires on ice is a scary thing.

Sensible... that word doesn't belong in this thread. :)

I consider my Mustang to be perfectly sensible. There's only two of us so we don't need the back seat, the truck is at least as big as the one in our Corolla, and I'm driving it year round without any traction-related issues.

And those 305 ponies under the hood allow me to remain a sensible distance ahead of most of the traffic on the roads. :)

Spud
09-18-2012, 07:48 PM
I consider my Mustang to be perfectly sensible. There's only two of us so we don't need the back seat, the truck is at least as big as the one in our Corolla, and I'm driving it year round without any traction-related issues.

And those 305 ponies under the hood allow me to remain a sensible distance ahead of most of the traffic on the roads. :)

I like the way you rationalize!

There are 5 of us so sensible went right out the window once I said "I'll take it." Why not cut the top off too!

Of course, you Canuks were born with ice skates on so apparently traction issues aren't the same for you. :)

Magiver
09-18-2012, 08:10 PM
I like the way you rationalize!

There are 5 of us so sensible went right out the window once I said "I'll take it." Why not cut the top off too!

Of course, you Canuks were born with ice skates on so apparently traction issues aren't the same for you. :)
and of those 305 ponies imagine a supercharger that bumps it up another 100+ hp.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-18-2012, 08:47 PM
What... do you guys think the normal features of a car suddenly stop working when the top is down? 90 degrees with a nice 40 degree blast from the AC is amazing... even better is 40 degrees and driving through the fall colors in Southern Indiana with a 75 degree blast coming through the vents.

As for my Shaker 500... with Jimmy Buffet blasting my wife was smiling so big she didn't even realize the speedo was over 100. (clearly it is totally out of wack since the legal posted speed limit is 65). ;)

Shaker 1000 or epic fail on a convertible...

:D

jz78817
09-18-2012, 09:21 PM
Another thing for me is blaring the radio. As it's a badass Mustang (Black Sunshine, Eleanor, whatever) I require high volume Devil music to be blasting through the (admittedly somewhat weak compared to aftermarket) Shaker audio system while driving. Usually Black Sabbath, System Of A Down, or something equally menacing. A convertible would drown a lot of that out with wind noise.

have you put it into Driver's Seat mode?

Spud
09-18-2012, 09:31 PM
Shaker 1000 or epic fail on a convertible...

:D

So, the fact that my 500 shakes the side mirrors with the bass, and it is easily heard with the wind from the top down at 100 MPH... I somehow don't have a good enough sound system? Did I mention I am playing Jimmy Buffet? (maybe Eric Clapton if I'm feeling wild)

carnut
09-18-2012, 10:36 PM
The Mustang Mach II was bland to look at and, overall, a horrible car. We called them Rustangs.

But for ugly, I vote for the 80's Mustangs. They looked too plastic-y and showed none of their pony car heritage.

Johnny L.A.
09-18-2012, 10:47 PM
But for ugly, I vote for the 80's Mustangs. They looked too plastic-y and showed none of their pony car heritage.

No, after the '74-'78 Mustang IIs, the '80s ones looked pretty awesome by comparison.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-19-2012, 06:33 AM
have you put it into Driver's Seat mode?

Nah, I always leave it in the "all seats" mode. I like hearing the music from all around me, and plus I've got two boys that (somehow manage to) sit back there and they need their heavy metal indoctrination as well.

So, the fact that my 500 shakes the side mirrors with the bass, and it is easily heard with the wind from the top down at 100 MPH... I somehow don't have a good enough sound system? Did I mention I am playing Jimmy Buffet? (maybe Eric Clapton if I'm feeling wild)

I am sure you can hear it, but can you really HEAR it going 100mph with the top down?


:)

FordTaurusSHO94
09-19-2012, 08:04 AM
My Cobra isn't a convertible, and it has a hole in the dash where the radio goes, but my MX-5 is and the radio gets loud enough to kill any wind noise from having the top down. A Mustang is way more practical than an MX-5!

jz78817
09-19-2012, 09:16 AM
Nah, I always leave it in the "all seats" mode. I like hearing the music from all around me, and plus I've got two boys that (somehow manage to) sit back there and they need their heavy metal indoctrination as well.

you'll still get that, Driver's seat just centers the stereo image in front of you instead of leaving it stuck by the A-pillar.

COGringo
09-19-2012, 10:21 AM
OMG, the hatchbacks have to go. HP's in the 100's? Not sure I would have ever bought this bad boy had I known. My '08 Bullitt.

Not the best photo

http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8003281271/

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-19-2012, 01:49 PM
you'll still get that, Driver's seat just centers the stereo image in front of you instead of leaving it stuck by the A-pillar.

Hmm. I'll have to give it another go. I only briefly tried it once and (wrongly) assumed that the sound was only coming out of the front door speakers.

OMG, the hatchbacks have to go. HP's in the 100's? Not sure I would have ever bought this bad boy had I known. My '08 Bullitt.

Not the best photo

http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8003281271/

Love that color. If I had that car I would totally be putting a billeted aluminum grille in that thing. Without the fogs that's just a lot of grille real estate left blank.

sparky!
09-19-2012, 02:06 PM
I always though the 80s Saleen Mustangs were fugly as hell. It always seemed like they just bolted plastic crap onto the body for sake of bolting plastic crap.

FordTaurusSHO94
09-19-2012, 02:43 PM
Love that color. If I had that car I would totally be putting a billeted aluminum grille in that thing. Without the fogs that's just a lot of grille real estate left blank.

No way! The Bullitt has a unique grille that the others don't.

Here's a bad picture of mine.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/599348_718644055596_1655482082_n.jpg

COGringo
09-19-2012, 02:57 PM
Yup, I am not touching my grill. I might tint the windows more. I may get a bra on it not for looks but I have to drive 400 miles down to Albuquerque now and then.

Going 120 mph jacks up the paint on the front. I don't do the 120 too often anymore but it is fun since it still feels like about 70 in that car.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-19-2012, 04:20 PM
Eh, each to their own. I personally don't like the black honeycombed plastic grille I've got and I want to replace it with something that will accomodate the fog lamps. I contemplated some of those quarter window louvres but decided against it.

And jz78817, I did try those different settings on the stereo on the way home. I still find I prefer the sound of the "all seats" function more than the other two. "Drivers seat" does in fact center the sound like you said, but to my ears it sounds a little thin, quite a bit of the woofers drop out. The "rear seats" one sounded pretty boomy and distorted. The woofers were working overtime on that setting. "All seats" seems to strike a better balance over all.

FordTaurusSHO94
09-19-2012, 04:22 PM
It's not just a plain grille though. If you look close, there's a chrome strip that outlines it. It only comes with that car, and since they're limited, I'd leave it as is.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-19-2012, 05:34 PM
It's not just a plain grille though. If you look close, there's a chrome strip that outlines it. It only comes with that car, and since they're limited, I'd leave it as is.

Yeah, I saw it...I'm just not a fan of that honeycombed black plastic. Its a bitch to keep clean (and scrub bugs out of) and its not my favorite look for the car.

I'd want something like this: http://google.com/imgres?q=mustang+gt+aluminum+grille&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=1017&tbm=isch&tbnid=GjrvlfRptEW0gM:&imgrefurl=http://mytightride.com/fomu20bigr.html&docid=a0vNSJlk3vvgnM&imgurl=http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/mytightride/mustang-gt-billet-grilles.jpg&w=562&h=421&ei=5UdaUP_lIcjmygGOqIHQDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1431&vpy=160&dur=2333&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=160&ty=128&sig=115953668790351900260&page=1&tbnh=156&tbnw=201&start=0&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:93
http://google.com/imgres?

or maybe this for the Bullitt, if I owned one:

q=mustang+gt+aluminum+grille&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=1017&tbm=isch&tbnid=JTna8pT6mEHycM:&imgrefurl=http://deftracing.com/mustang_classic_design/classic_mustang_05_07_replacement_grille_gt.htm&docid=ASkmmFWRAAVzJM&imgurl=http://deftracing.com/mustang_classic_design/images/classic_mustang_05_07_grille_replacement_billet_2.jpg&w=640&h=427&ei=5UdaUP_lIcjmygGOqIHQDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1213&vpy=66&dur=4516&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=162&ty=126&sig=115953668790351900260&page=1&tbnh=156&tbnw=196&start=0&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0,i:90


This is screwing up my post. The second image would be for a Bullitt, if I owned one.

Gatopescado
09-19-2012, 05:39 PM
The ugliest Mustang I ever saw was a black and white one driven by the CHP in my mirror one day long ago when my RZ350 was new and I wanted to see how fast it would go.

Other than that, I say 4th Gen. They just seem.... incoherent.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-19-2012, 09:14 PM
The ugliest Mustang I ever saw was a black and white one driven by the CHP in my mirror one day long ago when my RZ350 was new and I wanted to see how fast it would go.

Other than that, I say 4th Gen. They just seem.... incoherent.

Really? The 4th Gen is way better looking than the Mustang II or the 1980's Mustangs...and given the right engine, a proper performer too.

split p&j
09-19-2012, 10:14 PM
Agreed with the above.

I own a 2000 GT, when it was factory stock I ran a [email protected] MPH in the quarter mile. That time is faster then any of the stock classic Mustangs, so the 4th gen's are true performance cars.

I think the '99-04's are the second best looking Mustang's. '69-'70 are the best.

I think the '71-'73's are the ugliest, big and bloated. Just a strange design, the '74-'78 Mustangs sold way more than them.

Compare those '71-73 Mustangs to the '70.5-'73 Camaro. what was Ford thinking?

FordTaurusSHO94
09-20-2012, 10:19 AM
The New Edge cars are still my favorite, assuming they're tastefully modded. The GT needs to be lowered and the grille delete/chin spoiler combo from the Mach 1 needs to be added to look right to me. The Cobra and Mach 1 look pretty much perfect.

I've had 3 Mustangs now:

2003 GT with several mods, including 4.30 gears, lowering springs, drag radials, etc.
2007 GT with 4.30 gears, aluminum 1-piece driveshaft, and tune.
1998 SVT Cobra with a Vortec at 11 psi, Maxiumum Motorsports coilovers, 4.10 gears, drag radials, control arms, panhard bar, full fuel system, etc.

The 2003 looked the best, the 2007 was probably the best daily driver I've ever had, and the current one I've got is by far the fastest in a straight line or turns.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-20-2012, 10:21 AM
What's it like to have a daily driver with 4.30 gearing? Are we talking 4,000RPM at 70mph here?

FordTaurusSHO94
09-20-2012, 01:55 PM
No, it wasn't much, something like 3000 or less. My current MX-5 and Jeep Wrangler both run higher RPMs at the same speeds and they have the stock gears and tire sizes.

Low gears completely changes the car. It no longer bogs at low speed, it just goes. Gas mileage didn't go down any either. It felt fast in every gear. They should offer them that way from the factory.

The 03 would top out at 105 in 4th gear though. I think 5th gear will hit the rev limiter at 170mph or so with 4.30s, but the car doesn't have the power to get there. The stock gears would have to hit something like 250 mph to hit the rev limiter in OD, so top speed isn't limited either. You could raise the rev limiter and get a little more room in 4th gear though.

The 07 had taller tires and a much higher rev limit, so 4th gear could go a lot further than the 03 could. It actually felt stock until you went wide open. It was a great daily driver. Comfortable and great mileage.

I went with 4.10s in the Cobra because it has enough horsepower that I might run out of room in 4th gear at the track and don't want to shift into overdrive. Since it's a 4V, it has the highest rev limit of all, but I think 4th tops out somewhere around 120mph. I'm supercharged though, so I can put up higher speeds at the track.

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-20-2012, 02:27 PM
No, it wasn't much, something like 3000 or less. My current MX-5 and Jeep Wrangler both run higher RPMs at the same speeds and they have the stock gears and tire sizes.

Low gears completely changes the car. It no longer bogs at low speed, it just goes. Gas mileage didn't go down any either. It felt fast in every gear. They should offer them that way from the factory.

The 03 would top out at 105 in 4th gear though. I think 5th gear will hit the rev limiter at 170mph or so with 4.30s, but the car doesn't have the power to get there. The stock gears would have to hit something like 250 mph to hit the rev limiter in OD, so top speed isn't limited either. You could raise the rev limiter and get a little more room in 4th gear though.

The 07 had taller tires and a much higher rev limit, so 4th gear could go a lot further than the 03 could. It actually felt stock until you went wide open. It was a great daily driver. Comfortable and great mileage.

I went with 4.10s in the Cobra because it has enough horsepower that I might run out of room in 4th gear at the track and don't want to shift into overdrive. Since it's a 4V, it has the highest rev limit of all, but I think 4th tops out somewhere around 120mph. I'm supercharged though, so I can put up higher speeds at the track.

Oh to have the new GT tranny with 5 usable gears rather than the 4 I have now. Well, that and the Coyote engine. And a supercharger. Gotta have that too. And that's all I need! Well, that and a modded suspension, brakes, clutch....and that's all I need! That and this ashtray...

FordTaurusSHO94
09-20-2012, 02:49 PM
I'm sure since my engine is stock, it's a timebomb with 11psi. I've though about a Coyote...

FoieGrasIsEvil
09-20-2012, 05:38 PM
I'm sure since my engine is stock, it's a timebomb with 11psi. I've though about a Coyote...

I keep imagining winning the lottery and handing my GT over to Shelby with instructions to not alter the outside appearance in any way but to completely redo the guts of the car...suspension, engine, tranny, rear end, everything. I'd have an 800hp sleeper GT.


Plus to me I really, really like the way my car looks. It's clean and elegant. I don't particularly like anything with racing stripes and such, so a GT/CS is right out. I almost want to remove the GT emblems from the side of the car. I LOVE the Vapor Metallic color of this car, and the old-school Cragar Mag look of the wheels.

One thing I really like about my car as it is is that it's so spartan. No extraneous shit...no GPS, no fancy electronics....the only concessions to modernity are a traction control button, a decent stereo, ABS, cruise control and air conditioning. I love the thing. Mechanical music.

split p&j
09-20-2012, 05:38 PM
I'm sure since my engine is stock, it's a timebomb with 11psi. I've though about a Coyote...

Naw, keep the 4V and stuff it with forged parts!

wolfman
09-20-2012, 06:17 PM
I will always be partial to my '70
http://google.com/imgres?q=1970+mustang+grande+pictures&hl=en&sa=X&biw=2000&bih=995&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsfd&tbnid=75d9pF2944QtCM:&imgrefurl=http://allfordmustangs.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/135710&docid=Yvpo8-wJijVtNM&imgurl=http://allfordmustangs.com/photopost/data/500/medium/IMG_41571.JPG&w=800&h=600&ei=pKNbUMyOIubDyAHU9IHoAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1696&vpy=518&dur=184&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=159&ty=80&sig=108586532696086495209&page=2&tbnh=148&tbnw=209&start=40&ndsp=50&ved=1t:429,r:33,s:40,i:307

Not Mine :( I had to see it in bad times a couple years ago, but that's what it looked like.

Morgenstern
09-20-2012, 06:23 PM
I guess we're lucky. Ford considered replacing the Mustang with the Probe around 1989. Imagine, a FWD Mustang. Fortunately, they didn't go for that.

FordTaurusSHO94
09-21-2012, 09:51 PM
Naw, keep the 4V and stuff it with forged parts!

It's a Teksid, so I'm sure I'll keep it. I'd like to send it off to MMR and have them build it.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Best Topics: farads times volts hermaphrodite pregnant miso expiration quicksort iterative plural of ethos food thief samurai book mrs calabash money cat floater days an omage trane xl 1400 absolut peppar drinks why do women wear lipstick what does llc stand for after a business name india golf niner niner how do you pronounce maori how to alter a dna swab test cruel to be kind nick lowe turning on a dime can you laminate social security cards happy birthday mr hood og instagram names not taken saints row 4 cure cancer or feed hungry