Howdy, Stranger!

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





Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

1121315171894

Comments

  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,636
    the small side (rear) window came out with the '66 GT-350, as did a range of colors other than white/blue.

    Race versions (GT-350R) did have it as well if they were based on '66 bodies.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    You are correct re: the quarter windows. I realize now that the GT350-R I'm thinking of is Walt Hane's '65 model.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,636

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
  • peter1cpeter1c Posts: 5
    I am a long time mustang fan, but is it just me or does this car kinda resemble an early 80's steched out pinto?????? I really think ford is making a big mistake with this one. What I like in cars is new gagets and electronic devices. Why can't Ford integrate some futuristic electronics into the mustang instead of a boring and plain design! And I have a 2003 mustang, I sat in the 2005, they still dont get the hint about stero ergonomics. You still have to stretch out of position for the radio. How bout some controls on the steering wheel! Anyway thats my thoughts on this car, overall the design and lack of features really bother me.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,699
    Then don't buy one. It looks nothing like a pinto.

    What about the color changing gauges? That's not gadgety enough for you?

    Gadgets cost $$$. Mustangs are popular because they're affordable.
  • kenm8kenm8 Posts: 71
    Don't you all think that the shortened Mustang 2 of early-mid 70's was closer to a Pinto?

    With the 05, it seems that Ford Company was trying to go back to the "classic" real Mustang fastback of eras 65-66, 67-68, 69-70. The show car that was prelude to the 05 was cleaner and truer to the classic. If McQueen were alive and not so old, he probably would have waited till 2004 to make Bullitt II with the 05 Mustang or 05 show car equivalent.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,636
    Same chassis, and drivetrain. (except V8 versions)

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Re the audio controls, I don't think ANY American car ever quite gets it right. ; )

    Still can't understand those change-a-color gauges...I mean maybe in a VW Beetle, but a Mustang?!

    To me, the '05 styling is mostly '68 GT with a touch of Shelby in it. Ford could have done a lot worse... : )
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Personally, I love it. But I am amazed at the emotion this car evokes, good and bad, in the fans and non fans alike. That alone is a victory for the car. And FWIW, I love the different color guages!
  • I guess I don't see why anyone has any issues with the color changing gauges. A user can set them to regular green and leave them that way if they really don't want to play with the new technology. It isn't like the owner is forced to change them to all sorts of different colors.

    I love the way the new Mustang will look. I have no idea how anyone could compare it to a Pinto like Peter did. A Mustang II sure was, but not the 2005 Mustang.
  • martin3martin3 Posts: 17
    It is nice to see LS folks (Mr. Banker and Mr. Kirby) on this board! As an LS owner also who looks for great American engineering, I must say that the LS has no emotions but it is a great driving machine, however the 05 Stang is an emotional beast with some outstanding engineering work by part of the same team that worked on the LS! Also I wanted 300Hp LS with 5-speed stick and now there is one coming in the form of Mustang. Can't wait to test drive one!
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    I keep hoping that somebody at Lincoln will notice that a lot of us are getting antsy about the end of the LS, and reverse course on that.....
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Posts: 854
    I fell out of my chiar when someone said "it looks like a early 80's Pinto"

    Only for six months in 1980 did Ford sell the Pinto, the Escort came along in the fall. So there was no 81-83 Pinto, "early 80s'"

    I don't see any Pinto in it at all!
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,530
    . . the possibility of a new L-M Cougar.

    Why couldn’t Ford / L-M take the development that WAS already done on a higher end Mustang, and create a new Cougar. (OK, probably another name . . )

    Significant development was reportedly done on a mustang based on the LS / DEW98 platform. Take that and develop something that really could shove L-M forward in de-defining the Brand.

    For instance:

    A better suspension, in real world driving than likely will be offered with strut front and live axle rear suspensions. (I have read that the struts were selected partly because of space limitations – in addition to mfg. Cost. I’ll bet Lincoln engineers could creatively address this.) I do understand the ‘drag strip’ = live axle point of view, through I don’t necessarily agree.

    Pull the 6-speed from Jag and add SST – bring Mark K. back to do the software!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And at the same time, sort of 'sneak' it onto the option list for the LS!)

    Make the interior somewhat more upscale in styling and materials.

    Develop specific roofline styling that will allow offering a sun- / moon-roof.

    Etc, etc., etc.

    [The Cougars on the 1994 or so time frame, as I recall, had IRS, for instance. And under the skin, that generation Cougar was largely a Thunderbird, as I recall. Hmmmm . . .]

    Well, if L-M thinks they can make this sort of thing work by starting with the F150 – Why not????

    Ford can still sell oodles of Mustangs in something close to their traditional price range, and L-M can defray the costs of some future mechanical enhancements to DEW98 / LS by spreading the development costs across a larger total sales volume.

    - Ray

    Just deamin’, I suppose . . .
  • I've owned a couple of G.T.'s, one of them was an 85, the last year of the carburetor. Anyone remember kicking in the 4 barrel, getting shoved back in the seat and that sound, that ungodly sound.
         Anyway, since the 05 is retro themed, a useless but interesting feature would be a program in the car's computer that simulates a 4bbl. Driver could push a button and change the feel from f.i to carbed.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,530
    "Driver could push a button and change the feel from f.i to carbed. "
    HA!
    That's great!
    Choice to simulate a big 4-bbl - or 4 twin choke webbers???
    And you could 'flood it' - heat soak it . . . simulate a choke stuck open.
    Love it!
    - Ray
    Spent way too long trying to 'tune' sidedraft SU carbs . . .
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,636
    '86s were a little down on power from '85s with the big carb atop the 5 liter but were much smoother running, esp when cold, and better on gas.

    '86-on Mustangs were widely considered better cars for having EFI rather than carbs.

    If you're looking to simulate that kick in the butt surge when the secondaries come in, try a turbocharged car.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • The efficiency and power of fuel injection with the sound and feel of a 4bbl. The variable valve timing might give a suggestion of this.
  • tayllortayllor Posts: 4
    I'm almost positive that my next car will be a 2005 Mustang. I'm ready for a new car but I've decided to wait until the 05 Mustangs are out. I currently own a 1999 Celica GT - I had a '93 Celica before this one. I really love the Celica for many reasons: reliability - I've never had a problem with either car; power - I can always count on it in any situation; style - the 93 and 99 are great looking cars but I'm not wild about the newer model Celicas. Anyway, I think it's time for a change. I've often thought about getting a Mustang (my dream car was a 1966 Mustang convertible - red with white leather interior - ohhhhh yeaaahhh!) then I'd hear about how unreliable they are. But I think I'm going to get a 2005 Mustang anyway. I'd love to hear from some of you car buffs who might be able to offer some insight into how the Celica compares to the Mustang.
    Thanks
  • BMW uses struts in the front suspension on several of their current production vehicles, so a strut front suspension doesn't have to be a bad or low-tech thing. It just depends on how it is designed and set up.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Celicas are great cars, and in fact were designed originally to be quasi-competitors of the Mustang.

    I like the new Celicas (WITHOUT that horrid body kit), and a GT-S without a spoiler (rare) is a nice sight to my eyes. Very "1960s GT racecar." And the early 90s (?) Celica All-Trac was and still is a really fun car.

    However, 2 things really differentiate the Mustang from the Celica: low rpm torque and rwd.

    Mustang torque is instant and immense; Celicas have to be revved pretty high to bring on significant power. If you like your Celica's power, you will LOVE the Mustang's...

    RWD makes a big difference in the character of the car and how it handles; rwd cars feel more balanced due to the better weight distribution, and they accelerate in a more controlled (i.e. no torque steer) fashion. There's a reason why most Euro sportscars are rwd.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    Don't forget the Vapor Lock too.....interesting feature to retro....
  • Seemed like an easy concept to grasp. I should have known better.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Okay, let's not get all worked up here...

    While simulated carburation would be an interesting feature and definitely fit the retro feel of the car, Ford would never do it. Very few people would actually purchase it I bet.

    Besides, I'd say there are a lot of other more pressing options to add for the GT. An option independent rear suspension, maybe a hurst shifter option and I hope the 2005 GT does not sport the odd "4x4" look that my 2002 does (current Mustang owners know what I'm talking about).
  • Too much coffee, NO sleep. Rough week.
         Just a light hearted suggestion gone askew. I agree about more pressing options.
         Pinto? No, I don't see it.
         Note to self: Lighten up Francis.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,636
    not being a current 'Stang owner I'm not sure what you mean by "4x4 look". Ig you mean the current style is too tall and blocky looking, I'd agree.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    But thinking more about the suggested "carburetor" feel, I do have to say that I'd like it if Mustangs had more of a "lopey" (is that the word?) cam, so that the engine/idle would have that coool old-school uneven sound (cf. Max's orignal yellow Interceptor in Mad Max). I love that. Sadly, they'll never offer that one either... : (

    Re the "4x4 look", hey I LIKE the current styling... : ) What I meant was the oddly large amount of space between the top of the tire and the wheelwell. It's like 3 1/2 inches! The car looks jacked-up like a truck, rather than hunkered down like most previous Mustangs. No one knows exactly why Ford did it for the 1999+ Mustang, but it's a definitely weird look, and the reason why a lot of people replace the stock springs (not to slam the car, but just to get it looking normal...)

    I'm planning on installing a set of Ford Racing's "B" springs to lower my car about 1.25 inches in front .75 in back (a "Daytona Rake", right?)...
  • I like the looks - combining nostalgia with a little present day pizzaz. The guages will be fun to tinker with at night. Since I owned a Ford Pinto wagon many years ago, I can safely attest that their is no comparison. That comment must have been a conversation starter.
  • There is emotion over the Mustang because no matter what, it is a "survivor." ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.