The '05 coupe Job1 date is 9/7/2004 while the verts will begin in January of 2005 (Was February until last week). Depending on what the actual day in January is you probably won't see a vert on a dealer lot until early to mid February.
It has also been reported that only 175,000 total Mustangs will be built for MY2005. Let's hope that's enough to go around!
Finally the '05 info is starting to come out on the Ford website (I always take magazine stuff with a grain of salt; to me it's not official until I see it on the manufacturer's site).
No real tech specs yet, but the pics are great.
And I've got to say that I REALLY like the V6 16" wheels with the spinners...very sharp.
Ford motor sales are dropping, because whatever they have Honda Toyota or Nissan has better. The Mustang is one of the things Honda Toyota Nissan doesn't and cannot compete against. So if Ford wants to bring up their sales, the Mustang will do it.
True, but Ford has been neglecting their cars for a while, focusing on trucks. Cars are now on the front burner, and a whole raft of new models are almost here. It should recover a lot of sales for Ford. It will always be a battle though, with Toyota and Honda, for the middle class sedans. Toyota has never had a Mustang competitor.
Recall that in early 80's (I think), Toyota brought out a fastback rear-drive 2-door with straight six named Supra. Previous to that, they sold a fastback Mustang lookalike with a 4 cylinder starting in 77 through 81-82. The early Supra models somewhat resembled 67-68 or 69-70 Mustangs. In early 90's, the Supra pricing and equipment kept increasing (to high 30's or 40K?) and Supra was discontinued sometime in late 90's.
It was the first Celica c. 1973, that was patterned after the Mustang, notwithstanding the small 4 cyl engine (which contemporaneous Mustangs had as well).
Gen 1 Celicas came as either fastbacks or notchbacks, just like Mustangs. The fastback Celica models actually bore a passing resemblance to Mustang Fastbacks of the '67-'69 era.
Was it the first-gen Celica that had an availble "sunchaser" option, that amounted to a cool drop-top-and-rear-window thing that was sorta like having a Euro-convertible? That was pretty nifty... : )
early Celicas like most early 1970s Japanese cars were pretty bare-bones cars. I'm not sure what this Sunchaser thing was but the Gen I Celicas all had steel roofs.
I think they may have had some sort of targa-style option in the Gen II (late 70s) cars IIRC.
I also feel the quarter window on 05 not quite right. But, maybe it has to grow on you.
Doesn't the quarter window go back to the 65-66 fastback Shelby Mustang? It looked pretty good on these models. I recall these were mostly white with a blue racing stripe. In early 67, looked at a used (pre-driven) 66 black (with gold trim) Shelby Hertz. Hertz had a small number of these in their rental fleet. I passed on it unfortunately. Got a new 67 GT with 289 high perf solid lifters instead. Was very nice. Wasn't the Bullit car a 67 with supposedly a Chevy engine?
I shared a locker with that guy for one year in High School!
He lives about 1/4 mile up the road from me now but I don't recall ever seeing his Sunchaser on the road before. Now I'll have to keep an eye out for it.
The '65 Shelby's where all either white or white w/ the blue stripe. The '65's did NOT have the quarter window in lieu of the louvers/extractors. The '66 Shelby's where availble in a wide range of colors, and, as you've noted, as a 'rent-a-racer' through Hertz (the GT350H cars). The '66 cars were the first street Shelby's with the rear quarter window. The track cars (GT350-R) had (to the best of my memory) an aluminum panel riveted in place of the plexiglas quarter window.
Actually, the Bullitt Mustang was a '68 (with a Ford 390 ci engine from the uplevel T-bird I believe).
Kenm8, too bad about not picking up that GT-350H, eh? : )
Of possible interest to the faithful out there: Target has a "checkout stand" (you know, with the National Inquirer and Horoscope mags) digest celebrating Mustang history. It's pretty in-depth, only a few errors and has some great pictures of the Shelbys and Trans-Am Boss Mustangs. Plus it's only like 3 bucks...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
I want one baaaaaaaaaaaaad. Love the whole exterior design.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
It has also been reported that only 175,000 total Mustangs will be built for MY2005. Let's hope that's enough to go around!
No real tech specs yet, but the pics are great.
And I've got to say that I REALLY like the V6 16" wheels with the spinners...very sharp.
Gen 1 Celicas came as either fastbacks or notchbacks, just like Mustangs. The fastback Celica models actually bore a passing resemblance to Mustang Fastbacks of the '67-'69 era.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0404/04/c10-111614.htm
I think they may have had some sort of targa-style option in the Gen II (late 70s) cars IIRC.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
http://www.pitt.edu/~chirdon/sunchaser/history1.html
I ran across one of these in decent condition in the mid-1990s on the road...it was pretty unique and stuck in my mind.
They don't look right to me for some reason (maybe I'm just used to the more truncated ones on my 2002)...thoughts?
Doesn't the quarter window go back to the 65-66 fastback Shelby Mustang? It looked pretty good on these models. I recall these were mostly white with a blue racing stripe. In early 67, looked at a used (pre-driven) 66 black (with gold trim) Shelby Hertz. Hertz had a small number of these in their rental fleet. I passed on it unfortunately. Got a new 67 GT with 289 high perf solid lifters instead. Was very nice. Wasn't the Bullit car a 67 with supposedly a Chevy engine?
I shared a locker with that guy for one year in High School!
He lives about 1/4 mile up the road from me now but I don't recall ever seeing his Sunchaser on the road before. Now I'll have to keep an eye out for it.
Bullitt Mustang a '67? Yes.
Bullitt Mustang w/ a Bowtie? Ehhhhh, no.
Kenm8, too bad about not picking up that GT-350H, eh? : )
Of possible interest to the faithful out there: Target has a "checkout stand" (you know, with the National Inquirer and Horoscope mags) digest celebrating Mustang history. It's pretty in-depth, only a few errors and has some great pictures of the Shelbys and Trans-Am Boss Mustangs. Plus it's only like 3 bucks...
Race versions (GT-350R) did have it as well if they were based on '66 bodies.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
What about the color changing gauges? That's not gadgety enough for you?
Gadgets cost $$$. Mustangs are popular because they're affordable.
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.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
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... : )
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.
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!
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 . . .
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.
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 . . .
'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.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Thanks
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.
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).
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.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
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?)...