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)



  • fdthirdfdthird Posts: 352
    My 2000 v6 convert had the Goodyear GAs...replaced with Toyos.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    Thanks for the info. I may do the same but it would be nice to stick with original equipment tires.
  • I bought a 2004 Convertible Anniversary Edition, Screaming Yellow with a White top. It had 30 miles on it when I bought it. Now I have 6500 miles on it. The first 1500 miles were fine then the car started vibrating real bad so I took it back to the dealer. First they thought the differential was the problem, ruled that one out and started on the trans and drive shaft. I told them that's what I thought it was in the beginning. They had my car for 2 weeks.
    I have had it back for 3 weeks now and it is vibrating again and the gas mileage is horrible. Also, it doesn't have the power it had before.
    Has anyone else had any problems with their car.
    I am a very unhappy Mustang owner.
  • What problems has anyone found with the 2004 Mustang V6. I seem to be having transmission problems. What else is wrong with them?
  • kazumakazuma Posts: 50
    hello all

    i just got a 86 mustang gt 5.0 hatchback for free. u can only guess the body as it was "free"
    it doesnt have the original motor iether, i havnt had much luck figuring out what motor it is or from what yr or make the engine came from. i have pinpointed it down to a 351 HO , or windsor, maybe even a boot it hasnt ran in a yr but when it did it ran tops. 5 spd.

    real question is, should i invest time on making a fast mustang or invest time on making a fast buck selling parts. body's got rust, lol not to sure on the frame (the car is 3 county's away and i have to tow it to my place for further exam ) interior, well u get the idea...

    any input would be great, hell maybe even a deal!! :)
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    I'm quite familiar with the 86 5.0. I'm not sure though, from your description, you have much to sell on this one that's worth anything parted out. I'd probably get it running good, and sell the car, if it were me.
  • At the end of June, I bought a 2004 GT convertible for $23,000. It had 1200 miles and just titled in Feb 05. I located the dealer via web searches. I'm 53 and my insurance (massachusetts) came in at $1450...that's with a perfect driving record. At this point though, its worth it. I have an ear to ear grin on my face when driving. Life is really good.
  • kyleknickskyleknicks Posts: 433
    congrats on your new toy!! you got a really good deal on your ride huh? was it a left over? or did someone had it for a short time and traded it in??
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Good stuff...congratulations! Color?

    My local dealerships seem to have a few leftover 04s sitting around. They seem a good deal, esp. with the few 05s they have sporting a $5k "market adjustment" fee. :(
  • jg495jg495 Posts: 1
    I'm looking for a left over 2004 GT, where abouts is this dealership? Any guidance is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    You're kidding, right? They still have 04's that have never been sold??? Those have to be boat anchors!!
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    " You're kidding, right? They still have 04's that have never been sold??? Those have to be boat anchors!! "

    --end quote--

    Well, there are some things to like in an 'o4. Looking backwards a years time:
    1) The 2004 looks more trim. While the 2005 is not fat, it is looking like it is getting there.
    2) You do not have throttle-by-wire to contend with.
    3) No first year production quirks - should have fewer problems.
    4) Some may prefer the less retro / replica car look. ( I have mixed feelings, as it really does look sweet, yet I sometime feel like I have already seen it somewhere years ago, new in 1968 or 69 )
    5) Gauges are set closer together, and easier to read without being inline with the steering wheel.
    6) No problems getting fuel into the tank.
    7) The dash was rounded and not a flat edgy looking thing, which dates back to my old '65. Come on, it was not special then and looks strange now when mixed with too many different time periods all rolled into one model.
    8) Gas mileage the same to worse on new model.

    OK, the New Stang has good build quality, as in tighter, stronger. And yes, it is suppose to handle better, which is a good thing. Looks wise, they exterior is pretty cool, yet almost too retro. Is it a better car - better buy? Don't know - just depends on how ya add up things. If you could find an '04 for under $20k compared to paying $25+ for the new one, well it would all depend on what you see the car as -- improvements, vs. less appreciated changes.

  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    You are forgetting what an 04 feels like when you drive it down the road, like its the body is twisting and flexing like a highschool football jock showing off for the cheerleaders.

    Oh and don't forget that weird shifter.

    Oh and the weird seating position. If you are 5'8 you have to slide the seat way forward to be able to work the pedals then you have to recline way back so that you are right on top of the steering wheel.

    Speaking of pedals, how about that clutch effort? You could always tell a Mustang driver who had stick verse automatic because the Stick driver's left leg muscles were bigger than his right legs.

    Want to talk about retro? How about the pull out head light switch the 04. My dad had the same kind of switch in his 1976 Ford F100!

    Oh and who wouldn't want a live axle setup that thinks its suppose to swap ends on you whenever you brake on a wet road?

    Over all though it was a great car...for 1978.

  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    I have an 01 Convertible, and I like it a lot. That being said, I like the 05 better. The big advantage I can find in the 04, is the potential heavy discount one may achieve. It was a nice car, and I have no beefs with it. The 05 though is just better all the way around IMO, with the possible exception of the .....the......well, come to think of it, it escapes me what could be an exception.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Yes, the '05 has a better shifter. And many, my self included prefer the modern day clutch and shifter, though prefer the old mechanical feel. If I bought a pre-'05, it would be an automatic. As for swapping ends on a wet road, I do wonder. I owned a '65 and a '85 and never had that problem. Don't know why, all of the sudden, people are having problems driving RWD car. As for the headlight switch on a Mustang being on the dashboard, it really doesn't bother me at all -- it works just fine there.

    Performance wise, does anyone has the slalom tests, lateral G tests and such to see how they compare between '04 and '05. Never heard of an excessive body flex in an '04 Stang.

    Does the New Stang have a telescopic steering wheel? If not, the seating position may or may not work better. I am 5'8" and seating position is fine on the '04 = short arms.

  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    But my 01 fits me fine and the 05 fits me fine too......
  • I have an 02 GT with 69k miles and had a problem last week with my ball joint breaking at a stop light. I had it repaired, and found out that the originals do not have grease fittings/ cannot be greased. I replaced it with a greasable one. Had any one known of a similar problem or any recall information on this issue?
    I had just begun looking for soulutions or suggestions. :confuse:
  • stang04stang04 Posts: 3
    arnie i hope you bought the car i have an 04 gt and i love it just put some mods on it magnaflow exhaust and a bbk air box wow i will be 52 this year
  • I do believe you have the wrong car. The one you're thinking of is the Pinto. Back in '76 or thereabouts Mother Earth News did an expose on the Pinto. When rear-ended at less than 35 mph the frame would buckle, the doors would jam and the gas tank would explode. Ford knew about it but refused to do anything because they wanted to manufacture a car that would cost less than $2000 MSRP. To rectify the problem it required the installation of a 1 pound, $11.00 baflle but that would have put the price over $2000. Ford calculated the cost of human life including suffering and loss of limbs, burial and other costs and determined it would be cheaper to deal with those costs than it would be to do a recall on all the Pintos on the road. After Mother Earth released their article, it resulted in lawsuits and Lee Iacocca's dismissal. I doubt Ford would be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice. And if so, I imagine it would have made the news by now.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Where do you get your facts, man? That infamous memo has been falsely represented. A 1991 Rutgers Law Review article showed that the memo did not pertain to Pintos or even to Ford products.
    The memo dealt with American cars in general. Plus, it wasn't about rear-end collisions and exploding gas tanks, but rollovers.
    Finally, the reason it assigned a monetary value to a human life was because federal regulators wanted Ford and other auto companies to use that concept, not because greedy executives wanted to find a way to justify not making product improvements. Federal regulators employed that very concept in their deliberations over the efficacy of proposed regulations.
    Auto makers could make a car that is completely safe in virtually every circumstance...and it would cost about $1 million a copy. Cost-benefit analysis is an integral part of the regulatory process, not a device employed by greedy, heartless executives to foist unsafe products on the public.
    This is why I approach this entire episode with a healthy dose of skepticism. (That, and the idea that companies, like individuals, are innocent until PROVEN guilty. And I do not consider an adverse verdict, a spate of news stories featuring hysterical CR-V owners, or a pronouncement by Ralph Nader or Joan Claybrook to be proof of guilt.)
    Too many of these scares - the Ford Pinto gas tank case, the Audi unintended acceleration fiasco, the GM pickups with the allegedly hazardous "side saddle" gas tanks - have collapsed once all of the facts were brought to light.
Sign In or Register to comment.