Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
http://www.stangbangers.com/89_LX5-0_vs_Competition.htm
NSORIC, that's a great article; I'd never seen it. My comments on the Mustang were purely my guess... : )
An early MT article said that it might be the 4.0 from the Explorer if emission requirements could be met, but I've also heard that it might be a version of the Duratec30. Since the '05 Mustang will be built at the same facility as the Mazda 6, it could be the 3.0 VVT, which is both good (decent hp) and bad (not much torque).
I'd rather have the 240+ ft/lb torque from the 4.0 and give up the extra 10 hp. The 3.0 VVT doesn't get that great of mileage anyway, and a non-VVT Duratec30 would be totally uninspiring.
It would likely provide decent performance with an automatic, while the 3.0 liter would struggle to get the car moving from a stand still.
The V6 Mustang butters Ford's bread. Without the V6 edition Ford would not be able to offer the Cobra and Mach 1 models. Plus, its not as if a 4.2 liter V6 Mustang with a five speed would be a worthless slug. It may actually be kind of entertaining.
The fact that Mustang V6 sales demographics do not include a larger percentage of car enthusiasts is no ones fault but Fords. Compared to other affordable V6 cars with manual transmissions (Altima and Mazda 6), the current generation Mustang looks pretty lame. RWD is about the only thing is has going for it. Hopefully the '05 will be a more attractive alternative.
I haven't seen the numbers for a while, but the V6 Mustang outsells the GT by about 2:1 most months.
Unlike a lot of Ford engines, this one actually looks nice.
Your comments on the 6 are obviously based on absolutely no knowledge. The car is great with lots of power and good reliability.
Oh...and all Mustangs should be red convertibles with black tops and dark grey interiors. Black closed Mustangs only give the red open ones a bad name! Also, people who drive without the air conditioning on are stupid!
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE PHRASE DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS??? Enjoy your car and leave ours alone!
Why is yours good only because mine is bad?????
The power (193hp) is not weak by any normal scale. In fact, this is similar hp to what was offered by previous GT models. With a manual, the V6 is a blast to drive and is quite peppy. And it's very easy to have tail-out fun with it.
Edmunds.com did a review of it, and it really surprised the reviewers. They enjoyed it a lot, and while it's not a tire-churning musclecar, it *is* a great pony car value that captures the proper Mustang feel.
I have a GT and love it, but the V6 Mustangs are no slouches (1999+ that is). They are true Mustangs (there have been V6 Mustangs from the beginning), and offer amazing bang-for-the-buck performance.
Check one out if you can...you just might be converted.
Fdthird, man are you confused: everyone knows that true blue is the ONLY color for Mustangs (if you're cool that is...) ; )
If it were not for the "plain Stangs", there would not be a good business case to build the Mach 1's, Cobras, GT's, and Bosses.
By way of comparison a 1994 Altima has a 2.4 inline 4 that puts out around 150 hp; a 2000 base Mustang puts out 193. The Altima weighs 100 some pounds less though. But the big difference is the torque: 154 in the Altima vs. 220 in the Mustang.
There are other variables of course, but in all fairness, the 3.8 engine is hardly a "gutless wonder"; it's actually pretty good (in the 1999+ incarnation). Your mechanic was probably refering to the previous 3.8...
Not really. In a nutshell, Ford's sales success with the V6 Mustangs make its costs for the Mustang line manageable. There simply aren't enough V8 Mustangs sold to make building them alone profitable. So without the V6 models, Ford probably would cease production of Mustangs entirely (say instead use the factory to build Ranger pickups), or else raise the prices dramatically (which would further hurt sales). End result: no Mustang as we know it.
Even the hallowed Cobra utilizes many "regular" Mustang-line parts.
It's not an issue of engineering, but rather one of economics.
I still contend that Ford could drop a 205-210hp version of the Freestar/Monterey 4.2 liter V6 (yes, it is a 90 degree unit) in the new Mustang to create a decent base model. Like I stated earlier, the output numbers on this engine are very similar to those of the original 4.6 liter V8 that appeared in Mustang GTs not too long ago. Combine that engine with a slick shifting five speed stick or five speed automatic and Ford would have a moderately entertaining car without having to invest a tremendous amount of R&D.
And I think "real-world" is a significant modifier. The V6 Mustang does 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds; that's plenty fast for most people and their usual driving situations.
Sure you won't be setting records at your local dragstrip, but it's enough to be fun. Combined with the rwd, you have the recipe for some fun, everyday driving: burnouts, powerslides and all the other "Starsky and Hutch" stuff we all love... : )
I usually add a few 10ths of a second to magazine times to compensate for "average driver" ability (or lack thereof) : )
But I think that article bolsters my claim: V6 Mustangs are by no means dull cars. They are quite entertaining, and while they may not have raucous V8 power, they're still worthy of the Mustang name.
I've been seeing base Mustang coupes for around $15K right now...that's downright cheap for what you get.
If the flag-bearer of the Ford lineup has a second-rate (or third-rate) V6 in it at this point, then something's wrong.
I cannot fathom such bungling stupidity. Many of you will know the specifics of those events and can elaborate accurately.
Yes, the 3.8 is not the best, most high-tech engine. But it's hardly "an insult to Mustangs". It does the job just fine in terms of performance for those who buy it (and they do buy ALOT of them), and it is inexpensive to produce (esp. given how long it's been around). For a car company, that combination is a winner.
As for a historical point, the Mustang II (1974-1978) was indeed a low point for the Mustang line. Yes, it was built on the Pinto platform, and eventually sported the most anemic 302 ever offered in a Mustang. : (
But as the ads said then "it was the right car at the right time." It sold like gangbusters, while the 1973 (still a "proper" Mustang as purists would say) sat like a rock on the market. I'd say that Iaccoca was quite shrewd with the II. The Mustang survived BECAUSE of the II, not in spite of it.
The Mustang II is unloved now, but if it weren't for it carrying the ponycar torch in some tough times, the current Mustang would probably BE a re-badged, fwd Probe. And none of us want that.
Every now and again, car companies *do* listen to us. : )
People who love and coddle a classic Mustang will often have a newer Mustang as a daily driver. The support is great, but if the cars didn't sell, we'd be talking about it just like the Camaro folks are!
The Mustang has seen some bad times, but it's always been there. Fortunately, I think we're about to really hit a high period (that has been building since 1994) with the 2005 Mustang. Esp. given that Carol Shelby is supposed to return to the Mustang fold.
Based upon your comments I just might have to trade in my V6 Mustang on something else and leave Ford behind since it is so terrible. I would have liked for you to see my prevoius posts but the host removed them and sent me a nastygram, because I should not have told you the facts apparently. Sorry, host please don't be angry with me again, just stating my opinion. This time you can see that my "tone" is not "offensive" just stating the obvious. In conclusion, Snaker I only just want to know, after the V6 Mustangs stop selling which will END production of the Mustang altogether, what line of vehicle will you drive next????? Just curious is all. What is your second pick? AND, I apologize in advance if anyone was offended just talking about cars that is all. Thanks for listening.
Lesson #2 - Customers and GM do not love the Camaro the same way Ford folks love and support the Mustang...GM does not, at this time, make a Camaro.
Lesson #3 - They are called Pony Cars because the Mustang was the first out of the box in April, 1964. Looks like it will be the last of the species too!
I personally feel the Mustang is a better all-around car than the Camaro (hence why I bought one), but that's not to say that the Camaro doesn't have some very good qualities. It all depends what you value in your ponycar, and what level (V6 or V8) you're considering.
At the V6 level, the Mustang is probably the better car. It's a little faster than the Chevy, handles better and overall has more poise. Of course, if Camaro styling is your cup of tea, that'll make the difference.
At the V8 level, things aren't so simple. The Camaro enjoys a significant power advantage over the Mustang. And you really feel it; Camaros have NHRA-like acceleration. Handling is probably equal, though I personally think the Mustang feels more nimble. A lot of people rightly feel that you get more performance bang for your buck with the Camaro.
But you consider attributes other than peformance, the Camaro has some pretty irritating flaws. The interior is straight out of the 1980s, build quality is worse than the Mustangs' (!), it's a deathtrap (extremely high real-world accident death rates), and the manual 1-4 shift "feature" ranks up there as one of the dumbest GM ideas since the Cadillac Cimeron.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
I'm really just a ponycar fan who happens to own a Mustang. If Chrylser made a Barracuda (with the new Hemi of course), I'd be driving one of those.
Those ads for the new Durango (with the yuppies proclaiming "it's got a Hemi") really irritate me; put that engine in a vehicle that doesn't weigh nearly 5000 lbs and lacks the suburbanite gadgetry - now that would be something to behold.