Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Mustang (2004 and earlier)

1…5681011…42

Comments

  • midlifermidlifer Member Posts: 21
    on the 5W-20 oil...not enough protection? When i did my fist oil Change,my first thought was Exactly that,kinda thin for a American V8? Are the tolerances that tight? but i used it. I will be asking around before my next change, i'm still thinking about Synthetic? what have you heard.
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Member Posts: 776
    At least, that's the feeling I get from the convertible. Check out how steeply raked the front windshield of that convertible is. If the driver really is sitting that low with the front cowl that high, the driver isn't going to see much of the road. IMO, one of the current Mustang's biggest weaknesses (at least compared to other "performance" vehicles) is how difficult it is to see the front two corners of the car. Understanding that this is one of the costs to having big V8s up front, I was hoping for the redesigned Mustang to have a somewhat lower front hoodline.


    Poor visibility makes sense for high-torque boulevard cruisers, but if a car has performance aspirations then the driver needs to be able to see where the car is in order to put it where he or she wants to. I hope the convertible is more of a styling exercise (which I think it is - real test vehicles won't wear white powdercoated rims like that) than a glimpse at the actual '04/'05 Mustang.

  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    is that the current view over the hood looks cool, it is one of my favorite things about the car, and I have heard others say this too. Maybe there is a compromise somewhere. An extreme example is the Mach 1's hood, that thing has a huge bulge which I would think would further inhibit the driver's view of the road, but it looks great, if I had a chance to get my hands on a Mach 1 I wouldn't complain!
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    some concerns on that front. Zues seems to have his doubts on the thinner oil. However, the dealership said using a different grade would void the warranty. As for synthetic, I have heard the best is Mobil 1. But Mobil 1 does not yet have a synthetic in the grade 5W-20. They have told me that in March 2003 they will be introducing a 0W-20 synthetic, which is designed for the new engines which call for 5W-20, and approved by Ford, which I will probably switch to at that time. It's really difficult to research engine oil, there are so many different opinions (check out the boards,wow!). I guess time will tell. Good to see your post!
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    check out Post #4720 on the Synthetics board. Some of the issues raised about 5W-20 are of concern to say the least.
  • midlifermidlifer Member Posts: 21
    It has anything to do with tolerances? I was always under the assumption that a lighter weight recommandation was due to very tight tolerances on the internal parts? If this is true i dont think you would want to use a heavy weight 20W-50? I always used castrol 20W-50 in my old 1967 289 and my 1985 5.0 but this newer 4.6 motor, who knows why they are recommending such a thin weight? It's either political or something major has changed. I do know this ,there are very few choices out there for the 5W-20 (that may tell you something i think ford has something going with a few oil makers lol) thankfully one company that makes it is my favorite ,Castrol. We will have to do a little more research i guess.

    I do know this ,by the summer i think i will be using that Mobile 1 Synthetic, i dont think that 5W-20 can handle this Nasty Houston heat!!!
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    on what you do about the oil; I agree, maybe there are sound reasons why Ford wants 5W-20. But if it is only because of EPA statistics or fuel economy... anyway, once the new Mobil comes out I'll for sure change to Mobil 1 0W-20 or I will go to Mobil 1 of a different grade.
  • goofy10goofy10 Member Posts: 17
    What does everything you guys said have to do with what i asked? I'd didn't ask for opinions on what to do to my car. All I wanted to know is if the convertible was better or the coupe.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    Adding my two cents, I'm going to stick with 5W-20 for the time being. For now, my Mustang is mostly a daily driver...when the autocross season starts again, I might consider a heavier weight. I think the 4.6 *is* supposed to have been manufactured with very tight tolerances, which might be part of the reason for the light weight. But I'm sure most of it is to offset the V8 detriment to their CAFE target.
  • checkmecheckme Member Posts: 73
    I am beginning to change my mind about the rear end. If you look at it closely, you will see that it does not drop off as precipitiously as you might think. It is hard to see beause of the rock beach behind it. It's not as bad as I first thought.
  • gasguzzler007gasguzzler007 Member Posts: 70
    for you goofy. Iam sure you will get laughed at more in a convertible that looks ricy. Iam just curious as to what body kit you want to get?
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    ...we all evenutally end up liking it. I remember when Ford changed from Fox to SN95; I thought: "why did they change a good thing?"

    But then I began to love it, as I do with the 1999 tweak.

    I think as long as Ford continues the affordable rwd, high hp/tq format, Mustang enthusiasts will eventually accept the new design.
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    it looked good, but it was chromed out a bit, wheels were aftermarket and flashly, and it had a billet grill. Then this kid gets out, couldn't be over 20. How do they afford the insurance let alone the car payment? But it occured to me maybe the GT badges are fake... maybe I am just being judgemental. And there should be a law against lowering these cars too far, a car should not look "lowered". I saw a lowered Mercedes yesterday, it is getting out of hand.
  • jeffer2jeffer2 Member Posts: 35
    Which to choose - depends on you. It's not something we can really answer. Do you have any experience drving a ragtop? If I had the $ I would've bought a GT 5-speed ragtop. Driving one is the next best thing to sex. Driving the couple isn't far behind that.
    Take them both for extensive test drives or drive a friend's to see which you would prefer. Are you looking for a GT? or a V6?

    On a another topic - does anyone not like the radio antenna on their Stang? Is there a better looking replacement out there? Thanks.
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    Not lowering a Mustang? Jeez, I don't know about anyone else that reads this thread, but I think stock Mustangs look like 4X4's... they sit entirely too high. I am very glad I lowered mine (Eibach Pro-Kit). Not only does it look a lot better, but handling did improve a bit.
  • cuteeric17cuteeric17 Member Posts: 43
    "I don't know about anyone else that reads this thread, but I think stock Mustangs look like 4X4's..."


    Well, I'm not sure about the 4X4 statement, it seems pretty absurd to me. The car looks funky cool being as high as it is.

  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    I think 'Flag said "lowering *too far*", not just "lowering"...I think he had in mind the cut-springs and tires-scraping-the-wheel-wells stuff, not lowering the Mustangs to a "normal" height.

    Question: why *did* Ford give the 99+ the 4x4 look? The 94-98s don't seem to have it. I've gotten used to it, but every time I see a Bullitt I realize how high the regular GT does sit. I've even heard that the FRPP lowering springs are actually the springs originally intended for the GT, but for some reason Ford decided against them...
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    lowered that would not have looked better at the stock height? Well, on second thought, your answer probably would say more about your age than about lowered cars.

    Okay, what about this: the Bullitt Mustang, I believe, was only lowered 3/4 of an inch by Ford from the standard GT height. So it doesn't seem Ford feels that the current GT is too far from the optimal height, if we assume they tried to make the Bullitt perfect.

    And if we are using these cars for commuters, some height makes sense, doesn't it? Who wants to be scrapping bottom all the time? And a little height for the driver is nice. In fact, from what I have read, Ford's new 500 series of sedans will emphasize giving the driver a heightened position. I guess Ford feels people like this aspect of SUV's (sitting up high) and will try to bring it to their sedans as well.

    And the lowered car phenomenom is a disaster in many cases; I want to slap these people, ruining perfectly good automobiles. I sure don't want to look like that, so if I lower my car it will be at most what Ford did with the Bullitt edition, about 3/4 of an inch, within the range of good taste.
  • gt4megt4me Member Posts: 58
    I'm with ya 100% bro.
  • boredbored Member Posts: 300
    That rear-end is nowhere near acceptable. Looks like the embarassing Mustang II. I'll never buy one. LOVE the front end though! They should have never strayed from that design!!! One thing though, even though these are modern times, the engineers were TOO lazy with the front end.

    Maybe if we ignore it at the Auto Show, Ford will ask why, and we will say "The Nauseous, Atrocious, and Hideous Rear End". Maybe they'll do something about it.
  • goofy10goofy10 Member Posts: 17
    I'm looking at a V6. I really want the GT convertible .... I've loved that car for so long. But I'll only be 21 when I get it and I live in NJ. The insurance on a GT would kill me ... I'd have to live in the car. I'm hopefully moving within the next couple of years so I'll either trade the V6 for a GT or just have both.


    A note on the lowering thing. I have to say I agree with it getting alittle ridiculous. Some cars are so low they look like they'll flip if the hit a pothole. Some of the things people my age and younger do to their cars make them look funny. Fixing it up to look cool is one thing but making it look like something out of a sci-fi movie is silly. And I would really like to know where these 17yr olds get the money to do all this stuff. At 17 I had a put-put car and couldnt even afford to get the windows tinted.

  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    V6 is a cool car in its own right...as true a Mustang as a GT (a little slower perhaps, but with a cleaner design IMO, esp. the 2003s)

    A consideration: if you get a V6 now, you can use for a few years (and enjoy cheaper costs-to-own), and then trade in for the new Mustang GT. Probably will have huge horsepower and better handling than the current iteration (though the jury's out on whether the styling is improved) Just my thoughts.

    -John
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    from what I understand it has more hp than some of the old V-8's. Also, down the road, then you can get a GT. I had to wait till I was 39.
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    feelings on the lowering of cars, I was afraid to sign on today, figured I was going to get yelled at! I'm glad to find out that I am not the only one who is put off by this overdone trend.
  • jeffer2jeffer2 Member Posts: 35
    Back in the mid-eighties I had a Monte Carlo SS (the big rear wheel drive model)when I was 22. That had a 305 V8 rated at 180Hp, and weighed probably 4000lbs. I thought that was fast back then. The Mustang V6 is rated at 193Hp stock, and weighs around 3200 lbs. Needs a throatier exhaust though. I haven't actually seen what my car can do yet. Somewhere I read a V6 coupe with 5-speed can do 0-60 in 7 seconds.
    Later- J
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    I think the 7-second figure for the V6 is about right. So in the "real world", that's good enough to hold your own against most cars on the road, esp. factoring in the performance bonus of rwd.

    Finally, those '80s Monte Carlo SSs were so cool! They kept the musclecar flame alive in some pretty desperate times (4 cyl engines and that whole "turbo" craze)...fortunately high-powered rwd is returning in a big way (though somewhat ironic that the current Monte Carlo has neither).
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    One of the reasons they do not lower the ride height of the cars from the factory is the fact of people whining because it rides too rough and the like. I personally like the way mine rides now, it looks a lot cleaner without the wheel gap and handles better (ie, it's safer). Sure, it's not so low it could plow snow like some people throw down their cars, but it's a good comprimise. I'm very surprised at the number of people against lowering. Oh well, I suppose it's all personal preference, just know that there is more wheel gap on the 99+ Mustang than there is on my Mom's 94 Taurus. OTOH, one of my friends who has a 99 GT vert lowered his with Edelbrock springs and it made a HUGE improvement on the handling and gave it a more aggressive stance. Just my two cents........
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    If you lower the car significantly (2" or more) would that cause a problem if you put on larger than stock tires, like the 275's? Also, wouldn't larger tires be another way of filling up the wheel well other than lowering the car?

    I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I don't mind a little height, I don't want to scrape bottom even occasionally, I am not driving a racecar, and I don't necessarily want to sit any lower versus the SUV's than I already do.

    It's a little funny isn't it: we've got one group, the performance car people, wanting to lower their cars as close to the ground as possible, and then there is the other group,the SUV crowd, wanting their vehicle to set up as high off the ground as possible. I won't even ask about a happy median, because then life would not be as interesting :)
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    Larger tires will surely look goofy and also throw the speedometer off in the process.

    I went from a stock height and 225/55/16 tires to appx 1 1/2" lowering and 245/45/17 wheels/tires and it definetly didn't throw anything off. I only rub a bit on the passenger side due to my front struts needing replaced, so it doesn't bother me.

    With larger tires, you also sacrafice handling since there is more to flex, therefore causing more of a "rocking" motion if you will. Although that is good when in a drag racing situation which will cause the tires to "buckle" with low pressure for maximum traction, in the twisties, it just rolls. A low profile is ideal in a autocross/open track scenario... as is a lower center of gravity... it's just common sense.
  • jtkz13jtkz13 Member Posts: 51
    C'mon now, does Vipers, Corvettes, or Ferrari's have *any* wheel gap? Ummmm no. A sports car should look hunckered down, menacing, and handle without body roll and brake without dive. Guess what, a quality set of lowering springs will do a lot for you, in terms of enjoyment and looks.

    Also, I have 315/35/17 drag radials out back, and 275/40/17 up front, on my lowered 94 GT. It looks freakin cool.

    Also some body kits can look sweet also. What do Saleen's & Roush's have? As long as you dont go with the Shogun kit you are fine.
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    The 2003 SVT Cobras (can we assume they get good tires?) come stock with 275/40-17" Good Years on 17x9 wheels. Road and Track in their review gave the look of the wider tires high marks, saying it added to the car's good looks, giving it a "squat" appearance. I read squat to mean wide and strong as opposed to just low. The 2003 SVT Cobra has good handling and has a stock speedometer while using the 275 tires.

    Regarding Steeda, a company I think that has the respect of those who are into Mustang modifications, the 2003 Steeda Mustang Q400 sold through Ford is only lowered 1"; again I would assume this is close to optimal in Steeda's opinion or else Steeda would have lowered it further.

    However, vive'la difference, if everyone were the same and liked the same things life would be pretty boring! And I understand that the Mazda 6, a very modern and cutting edge car, was designed to sit low to the ground to enhance handling.
  • jtkz13jtkz13 Member Posts: 51
    doesnt look any lower than the 3 series, but lower than most midsize 4 doors.
  • msalleemsallee Member Posts: 1
    No, no, no! It looks more like an Eclipse than a Mustang and that rear end has GOT to go! Speaking of Mitsubishi, that rear end has a Galant-like feel. They've taken a financially attainable car (for the average driver) and bumped it up into the next bracket, where a 3.8 coupe starts in the $20s, a price I would not pay for a 3.8! It's like they thought, "Well, it worked for the Thunderbird..." I really liked what they did with the '03 hood scoops and they are back to a blah hood. The whole design is just boring. There's nothing physically that catches my eye. No thanks, Ford.
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    Low price! + horsepower + RWD + Looks/Attitude +
    Lack of refinement + Pony or GT option

    If there is a problem with the rear end, then go back to the old Mustangs and copy their rear end look.

    Please keep the pull out light switch!
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    The 275 isn't the height, that's the width. It's a 40 series sidewall which would make it a low profile. The wider you go though, the higher the sidewall gets, so if you went with say a 315, you'd want to be down to a 35 or maybe even 30 series to equal it all out.
  • jtkz13jtkz13 Member Posts: 51
    315/35/17 in my Nitto's is a little taller than stock. But, I have 3.73s which make the speedo read a little fast, so going a tiny taller on teh tires makes it spot-on.
  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    Wow, those babies must be wide! Would like to see a pic.
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    here's a pic of my friends 315/35/17 d/r's on his 89 Iroc. They still aren't enough traction with his car though.


    http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/m/mmb199/MVC-004F.JPG

  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    Shouldn't you be driving your Mustang out on the boulevard rather than posting on the computer? Seems like on Friday and Saturday nights everyone's got their Mustangs out showing 'em off! Thanks for posting the pics. Those wide tires look cool, but I think I'll stay with 265's. Man those 315's are wide...
  • jtkz13jtkz13 Member Posts: 51
    Pics, videos of my Mustang. :D


    http://www.superford.org/registry/index.php?vID=631

  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    I'd say make the body look like that. http://sandersonsales.com
  • cuteeric17cuteeric17 Member Posts: 43
    It would look a lot better without that hump in the hood.
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    Well, when it's like 30 degrees out and snow on the ground and I had to be at work at 8 am, there isn't much use to be driving around. Besides, all the non-resident students went home for winter break or else graduated, so there isn't really anything to do


    Btw... here is a video of a burnout of mine... it's pretty pathetic actually. My foot slipped off the brake at first and then I missed 2nd as I couldn't find it for the life of me hehe oh well... This was out annual cruise/car show, so that's why there is all those people cheering and all...


    http://www.domesticdisturbance.net/videos/deomonspeedmissed2ndhahaha.avi

    It's not too dial up friendly though...

  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    for some reason it only downloaded the sound, but the car did sound great, I still got the idea. Good post. Wish I would have got the video too.
  • midlifermidlifer Member Posts: 21
    Great burnout,but i got to say, you really did blow second gear...How did you keep it still with a 5spd.?
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    Last Friday, I got an email from a PR firm that said that Ford was querying new Mustang owners on their thoughts about the new Mustang...a hyperlink then took me to an online survey.

    Some questions on what sort of badging the car should have, my willingness to pay for certain options, and (this one is for you 'Flag) how important a functional hood scoop is to me...

    Did anyone else get this?
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    I "two-step" the throttle and the brake. Kind of like a heel and toe thing, but I keep my left foot on the clutch, and half of my foot on the brake and half on the gas. I keep the clutch down with the brake down and give it some gas to about a grand or so and then I just let out the clutch and give it more gas while keeping half of my foot on each of the brake and gas while my left foot just does nothing hehe. It's not difficult at all and it makes it look like I am sitting there with an auto until you hear me miss 2nd like a retard. I'm not that bad of a driver, just one of those things that I just couldn't find for the life of me. I was more worried about getting off that street because RIGHT after that it started pouring so I was just more worried about getting in the parking garage since I spent 7 hours detailing it the night before.
  • gt4megt4me Member Posts: 58
    Did you use Q-tips and a toothbrush?
  • demonspeeddemonspeed Member Posts: 75
    Yes... I did... I did the mothers 3 step system outside and did every little thing on the inside as well. Not to mention under the hood and under the car as best I could. I only took 2nd though to a stock like 0 mile brand new fox body. Oh well.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles