Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Mustang (2004 and earlier)

11415171920104

Comments

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I'd say "back to the dealer it goes"...way too many rattles and clicks.

    My 02 GT coupe has a few, but they're the "normal" Mustang bugaboos: notchy shifter that clunks into second at times, windows that squeak when going down, but it's nothing like the cacophony you describe.

    Is it a convertible? I know they tend to have more issues than coupes in this area...
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    ...I'm glad I bought my 2002. I can't say that the design really does it for me. The front is unmistakably classic Mustang, but the back reminds me of the short-lived Mercury Capri convertible of the mid-1990s.

    Of course, it's hard to imagine that Ford would allow one of its most anticipated models out to go the beach (judging by the pictures anyway)and be photographed...this could just be another concept.
  • Will it have IRS?
  • YES!!

    And if it looks like that spy photo, I would be VERY interested in the car! Too bad there was only a pic of the convertible! I want to see how the coupe looks.

    Obi
  • If it's going to look like that, then count me out. Of course I adore the old Mustangs of the 60's and 70's, but something is missing on that one.
  • That is the grade the 2003 4.6 GT takes. My local quick change oil place put the standard 10W-30 in my car. I was not happy. Now I am going to the dealer for my oil changes.
  • Well, at least the Autoweek photo resembles the picture shown on www.lovefords.org and not that ugly car shown in MotorTrend. I used to own a Mustang, loved it, and I couldn't wait to see the new design. I love the front end and the sides of the new one but the rear leaves much left to be desired. The rectangular plastic lenses looks like something from the '80's and the back end is very squared off and boxy looking. Other than that, this will be a great car. I might just have to buy one. :-)
  • Why would Ford send some guy out surfing with an undisguised Mustang concept car? This sort of thing NEVER happens. Plus, the pictures look a little too good to be authentic "spy shots" - they look professionally taken (or modified).
  • to the public to gauge the reactions. Also, on a more progressive versus retro Mustang that some advocate, I wish to remind you of another product update: New Coke. How did that change work out? Not so great. Gotta be careful about changing a classic IMHO.
  • gt4megt4me Posts: 58
    Dealer oil changes are very affordable nowadays. That's where I've always taken mine.
  • Interestingly, looks like we are all of one mind on this issue. I too love the front and hate the rear. I understand that the new Mustang probably shouldn't be totally retro- the car does have to appeal to future generations, after all- but this is too much.

    Overall, the car is too bland (the sides are somewhat dull, nothing catches the eye) but acceptable (it does look clean; it might even be the best choice, though dull). The rear is atrocious, though. It does look just the old Mercury Capri! The front end is perfect with a capital "P".
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Given everything we've seen (the motortrend drawings, the autoweek pictures) it looks like Ford is going for a modern interpretation of the late 60s-early 70s Mustangs. This makes sense to me:

    - the 1994 redesign seemed a modern version of the original 1965 Mustang in terms of proportions and styling cues.
    - the 1999+ version gave that design a more muscular look as did the 1967 styling "tweak".

    So seems reasonable the new one will progress and incorporate updated '68-'70 cues (like that cool front end)

    However, this trajectory makes me wonder, esp. given the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and volatility of the energy markets, if the next redesign will be a modern Mustang II.... : (
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    ...plus you're sure of getting a good (Motorcraft) oil filter...I've heard that some of the other brands (Fram specifically) aren't the best in quality.
  • also, while at the dealership I can walk around and look at the Thunderbirds, Cobras, and (if they ever come out) Mach 1's.
  • 2004's. What's wrong with the current 4.6L? It's a fabulous engine. A bigger V-8 will tend to get worse gas mileage.
  • about the Mustang II, I am nervous enough about the change as it is :)
  • on getting a convertible or a coupe. i'm really not a big fan of coupes but i'll be making massive mods to the car when i get it and i think they will look weird w/ the conver. also someone said that the convertibles have more problems. can i get some feed back on which one to get. also yellow or silver?
  • Making it look stupid or performance mods? If your planning to put some big spoiler and tacky body kit on it then it will look weird with either body style. If your planning mostly performance stuff then the vert will look fine.

    The only problem with the vert is it will weigh more and the chassis will be less stiff since it missing its top. Sub frame connectors and a strut tower brace can probably take care of most of the body flex but if your planning to make crazy power then the coupe with the same setup will still be stronger and lighter.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I bet they do go with a standard 5.0 V8 in the new GT. Ford recently unveiled its new 5.0 SOHC "Cammer" engine. My prediction is that we see it first in the final "heritage" car for the current design - the Boss 302 remake; it then appears in the '05 GT.

    After all, the "5.0" designation carries with it some pretty strong feelings and connotations (even if it really is only "4.9"). And "5.0" is cooler sounding than "4.6" unfortunately... : (
Sign In or Register to comment.