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
After the test drive I told the salesman about the problem. He said the car been sitting on the lot for about 2 years and its to be expected that the acceleration would lag. He didn't offer to check out the car himself. Very lazy indeed. I got suspicious so I backed off on making an offer,
I don't know. Has anyone seen this before. A V -8 that drove like a medium 6 on acceleration. the car sounded fine but the acceleration just wasn't there. I like the car and the price is good $19,000. Any comments
Also, I noted that the car only had 25 miles on it. I thought this was strange for a 2004 model to only have 25 miles. Could it have been in the shop? the Salesman didn't even offer to check it out.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
-end quote-
The Montego has throttle-by-wire, so that may account for the hesitation on acceleration. If they get it wrong, and many a car seem to have it wrong, you get a lag. It is not just US makes that have problems. I would prefer to not mess with throttle-by-wire and electronic steering assist. As for the 2004 Mustang, it does not have throttle-by-wire. The new one does. I don't know what is wrong with the car on the lot, but like the other posting person said, walk away if it is not running good. Why start out on the wrong foot?
Loren
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.
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 cleavland.to 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!!
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.
--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.
Loren
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.
Mark
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.
Loren
I had just begun looking for soulutions or suggestions. :confuse:
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.
The original poster was asking a question and ended his post with "and I await your response".
I guess sirgallant just figured the original poster had waited long enough.
Thanks Medontemike
Thanks Medontemike
You have the singular distinction of being the only American not to love his Toyota..... You're a brave soul to admit it. When do you start therapy?
just to give u an example.. this past jan, i was driving from NY to CT.. 2 hour drive.. and was caught when it started to snow.. i'm talking very little snow on the highway, but it was enough to make the road very slippery.. i lost traction and the rear end started to fishtail.. and i did a 360 from the far left lane all the way to the right across 3 lanes and crashed.. luckily there were no cars around me ... i had to replace front bumper, hood, rear bumper, left fender, roof, side skirt and spoiler..
but on the other hand, i've heard about people living in big cities.. who have a very short commute to work on local streets .. and have no problem at all after putting on snow tires and putting a 100pound bag of sand in the trunk... so it depends on what kinda commute your wife has... i wouldnt chance it though.. wives are harder to replace if you like yours..
anyone have snow experiences to share??
I have driven in light snow, and heavy rain with the RWD cars without any trouble, but never the heavier snow.
Loren
the newer stangs are more evenly weight distributed...
" there's absoluately no weight on the rear wheels"
Adds required rear weight for traction. I think no weight on rear wheels is only
achieved when jabbing the brakes hard enough to raise the rear end. That would indeed
not be a pretty sight. Hummm, maybe a good drifter car Now there is sport which the tire companies love
Yes, 2005 Stangs have better weight distribution.
Is it my imagination that the door sill height is once again a little higher than last year?
Are the doors growing, or am I seeing things?
Drove home from the train station one winter storm last December and honestly had to idle away from most stops or I could not get any traction.
Winter tires and trunk weight may help some...but we have gotten spoiled with front wheel drive. At one point, we all drove rear wheel drive in the snow!