What do you guys think of the New Ford Mustang? I think it look pretty ugly. However, how does it do performance wise?
The new Mustang is the best one yet, they tried to incorporate the old GT500 into it and did a helluva good job
Ugly? I think not! Its a beauty both cosmetically, and performace wise. Its only .1 second slower than the GTO and the GTO makes 100 more hp!
I think it looks great. It doesn't look as mean as the last generation but I like it a lot. I wish Chevy would jump on the retro wagon as Ford is with the GT500. I think they should bring back the stingray look. Although that would sacrifice performance considering the c6 zo6 hardly weighs anything and was designed for aerodynamics.
The GTO would be a lot faster if they would lighten it up. Doesnt it weigh like 4000lbs? Does anyone have and pics of the ram air IV concept?
Chevy has a few concepts but nothing produced. They have the Camaro and a concept Nomad, also have Impala (i think) but not so retro.
hm, i just dont like the hood of the new mustang. the way it bulges upward
anyway, the thing is a beast... just not my style.
i love the wayit looks especially some of the custom ones i have seen
they are ojne of the nicest looking cars to be produced for a long time
by ford in my opinion
i like 'em ---- and i don't even like fords!!! :banghead:
i think the new mustang looks like the old one
old one meaning... last year, or from the 60's?
These new 'Stangs really are one of the best pieces (by Ford) produced
overall. Their handling is head-and-shoulders better than the previous
generation. It's about time the Fox-body went away. Probably the longest
running best selling platform(from '78-'04). Twenty-six years on basically
the same platform is amazing. But now the inherent flaws of the fox's
4-link rear-suspension and the associated tire-shredding off-camber
condition in the front suspension is gone.
These new 'Stangs have dipped into the 13's with the right driver. My only complaints are the incredibly sensitive torque sensing throttle by wire and the rubbery remote mounted shifter...makes power-shifting a little tricky. But if you go with an auto, you get a close ratio, quick shifting 5-speed that keeps the engine boiling. Overall, it's a great factory piece...now everyone seems to be using performance altering traction control and/or throttle by wire.
Good call, smarty.
Hey well you never know, it might look like the new one :ohcrap:
Hell yes they are and they still sound mean as hell and there is a lot oyu can do. AS foar as performance packages i know steeda ofers them which is a nice little boost to an already powerful car :thumbs:
The Saleen S281 Model has a slower 0-60 than stock :laughing:
You need to shut up and stop posting, we don't want your ignorance
spreading throughout car forums.
BTW at first I was skeptical of the new Mustang, but after riding in one and now getting used to the new look I love it, I;m sure this generation of body styles will last for a long time to come.
Actualy they did that ON PURPOSE, I hate it incredibly too.
They did it because Market Research groups said it (and a lower windshield) made people "FEEL SAFER" in it.
Seriously how much of a wuss do you have to be to want to be protected from the road?
The new Mustang is teh sex.
what the hell... you dont buy a mustang to feel safe... you buy a mustang to have a fast, and somewhat inexpensive car... :banghead:
quoted for truth - i feel the same way!
the new stang is mint!
everyone peep the new falcon:
that's the new ford falcon BA (XR8), it's far-king quick to say the least.. my neighbours got one.. *drools*.. sound's so good on mid-range revs...
Looks like a mildly tweaked 4dr GTO (Holden Monaro).
No, this is a mildly tweaked 4 door GTO (this is the car that they chopped
2 doors out of to make the monaro ... well one of the range anyway)
And I believe the XR6 turbos have better specs than the XR8's... could be wrong though.
dude, that's just a VT Commondore(SS).
i'm not a holden's lover.
BAH!! look's nothin' like the monaro, not even a little bit, i think it look's like the last gen stang.
it's actually a vx ... where do you think the monaro came from?
the XR6 Turbo has a lower power output, but i do believe that they've got better acceleration along with a better 1/4mi. time, the XR8 would most probably have a higher top speed though, due to more power, longer gears, better diff and junk in the engine bay.
meh, VT, VX, VK, VN, VP, they're all commondores.. as i said.. i'm not a holden's lover.. another word's, i aint gonna be right on the money with them 100% of the time, lol!.. and yeah, admittedly they look quite alike, i wouldn't be suprised if it was from the VT/VX that they got the idea for the new 'naro look.
are you serious?!? The monaro is essentially a commodore coupe. See the
true, well can't argue with fact's then, lol.
Seriously, that Falcon looks like a straight rip-off of that VT Commodore.
if you say so :screwy:
here's what the falcon looked like before the BA:
that's what a pretty standard XR8 kit on it.
those last two picture's are of pretty stock standard 1999 Ford Falcon AU model's.
What do you mean if I say so? They look identicle, open your freakin'
eyes, I think Holden could win a design law-suit based on those two cars.
I'm not sure why you showed me what the old ones looked like. That has no bearing on what the new ones look like. The old ones are ugly as sin though, they look a little like a Ford Taurus... which are one of the ugliest cars on the road IMO.
You'd be right. The older model design was foisted on Ford Oz by the dicks in Detroit. It resulted in a major plummet in sales:- something they are still trying to reverse by squaring it up a bit and focusing on engines.
dude, the BA Falcon looks NOTHING like a VT commondore! NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT, the car's are completely different in EVERY way.
Compare it to a VY .... they look similar, while still maintaining distinctive falc and commy traits.
Well, hope that whole blindness thing works out for you. I'm sure you face very difficult challenges everyday, I wish you the best of luck.
the only thing I see the same between the Falcon and the Holden is number
of doors and wheels. They are both basic sedans. Fronts and rears are
comlletely different, roofline and side window treatmetns are completely
That's like saying a Fleetwood Brougham and a Town Car look identical. or like saying Halle Berry and Beyonce look identical. :screwy:
i'm not the only one that see's two completely different cars...
Doesn't matter really coz the new Holden is coming out soon that is
supposed to look a bit like the rebirth Torana:
I'm happy for you
Wow, what an odd color for a concept car. But I'm very fond of the lines, good lookin' sedan :thumbs: .
it'll never replace the gtr xu1's, oS torana's are the best.
First Mustang worth buying since the Mustang I left us in '73 IMO. The
exterior is actually attractive again, the interior looks just fine
(finally)...although they still are cheap interior happy in areas
As for performance I can say the GT needed the 40hp boost to 300hp as family cars were catching up to the 99-04 GT. Handling seems to improved a little, not a lot as expected and the biggest disappointment to me is the weight which increased 100lbs to 3450lbs (on the GT deluxe coupe) and it was supposedly supposed to decrease (yet it still weighs over 300lbs less than a GTO... take note GM). The V6 model is still not worthy of any praise from me. Basically it's still a slow POS as they didnt really improve anything power wise by just dropping in the Explorer/Ranger 4.0L V6 with a whopping 210hp...Brings me to my next point. Why cant Ford get ANY damn power out of this 4.0L V6? Nissan's Frontier has a 4.0L V6 pulling 265hp and 284tq while Toyota's Tacoma is pulling 245hp with it's 4.0L V6. I thought Ford would at least put an engine in the V6 stang to bring it in the 240hp range. Like possibly take Hondas 3.5L V6 (w/250hp) like GM did and put it in there.
Here we go with this arguement again. First, it'll be a frosty day in hell before Ford turns to an import manufacturer for engines in the 'Stang. Second, it wouldn't make sense to make it that powerful. They want an economy version for people who may not be able to afford the gas or insurance or even the larger car payments. Plus if they build a 240+ hp 4.0, then few people will buy the 300hp GT. It's quite simple...the world doesn't work the way you want it to.
Very well put, I was going to say that about fewer people buying the 300hp GT when you can have a 240 hp V6 and a much cheaper price.
Dont you mean cheap General Mistakes :laughing:
I think the new Musang is beautiful. In every way. They have brought the Mustang back to its roots, and thats one of the best things any car manufactuar could ever do. The engine is a work of art, just like all the other 4.6Ls. I think if Ford wanted to they could make that car have 350hp with just a couple of simple adjustments, such as bigger exhaust, and a better camshaft. The compression could also be bumped up IMO.
I dont believe your thought. You still have a 60hp gap in power in my idea
(and a lot of torque) between the V6 and GT plus all the extras the GT
comes with that the V6 doesnt... I'm not saying make a 260-280hp V6 stang.
But at least make it competitive for the market. It's always funny when an
automatic V6 03-05 Accord pulls up to to a 5spd 3.8 stang (and now a 4.0L
stang) and blows its doors off. Is it that difficult to get power out of
such a large V6? Ford, like Daimler Chrysler and GM have done, will
eventually pull some engines/trannies from some import manufacturer. Just a
matter of time. GM did the right thing in taking Honda's 250hp SOHC 3.5L V6
for Vue Redline. Honestly, you think they could of thrown a 200hp 3.8 and
try and market that? " You can still be as fast as a...well... stock
Equinox in your new 3.8 Vue Redline... "
You can still get great economy with more power. In fact I'd go to bet any of Honda's J series V6's would get better gas mileage than that old 4.0L Ford would in a Mustang yet still have more hp and torque. I'm just glad you didnt use the argument of "well the Tacoma and Frontier use DOHC 24v V6's and the 4.0L Ford is SOHC 12v"... Because then I'd just say Honda has a version of the J series (3.5L V6 in the RL to be exact) making 300hp and 260tq with SOHC heads...still has 24v as Honda would never make anything below a 4v/cylinder head these days.
All I'm saying, it just would of been a smarter move on Ford's behalf. They would of sold even a lot more Mustangs than they already have. In the end I still love the new 05-up Stang. It was long awaited, and they delivered...at least in the styling and V8 camp.
It IS competetive for the market. How many other RWD, 200+ hp V6 coupes are
there under 20k?
it's supposed to be about that for hp, so that the car can remain an insurance bargain. But just becaeu it was released at 210 hp (about 5 hp down from teh Fox chassis Mustang GT, BTW) doesn't mean that that's all that can be easily had out of it. That would be like saying that '80s Fox Mustangs are only going to be slow POS because the stock ones only had 225 hp...
The V6 Mustang is about the only 6 cyl RWD coupe on the market, and the only one in anything close to it's price range it doesn't HAVE to be fast, as the GT is supposed to be the fast one. And unless you've driven the new one, understanding it's place in the market, I'd say you need to reserve comments.
I dont think Ford would want to start putting import engines into their sports car. They really only do those things with their economy cars like the Escort, and Contour. Putting an engine from Mazda in their Mustang V6 would be like commiting suicide on their part. What Ford SHOULD do is make that 4.0 V6 a 24v.
i like the 4.6 but it would have been nice to see a more pwerfull 5.0 in the new mustangs.
But why, the 4.6 in the new GT is perfect, displacement isn't everything
nothings wrong with the 4.6 i think itd just of been nice to see the 302 back with the mustang. itd of made the retro theme a little better.
just like there was nothing wrong with the previous gen corvettes engine. but its still nice to see the new 427 in the zo6. just like the stingrays and there 427s and a few with 454s.
Now that I have your unedited post, let me say, why are you telling me that displacement isn't everything while I was the one that said it and after that you called me a dick. Now the thing is that made no ****ing sense what so ever. :screwy:
i kinda read your post quick. and didnt see the why at the begining and took your post as if it was negative. and replied. once i saw that it said why and that it was more of a simple question i went back and changed it cause the nice person i am. but your still being a dick now. next time dont open your mouth so soon
I was going to reply to the edited one but then you called me a dick, now whos the immature one now?
and i displacement isnt everything in the sense of agreeing with you. so actualy it did make sense. cause you said it like the only reason i wanted to see the 5.0 was the displacement. but the reason i wanted to see it was heritage dick.
*and i said
and i called you a dick for a good reason. the first time wasnt a good reason it was a mistake on my part. and i changed it. but then you were being a dick so i called you a dick. you jumped at the chance and started talking shit even though you saw i edited it to something that wasnt negative at all. and without even asking or wondering what the reason was you verbaly attacked like a stooge
Hell, why not put a 351 back in there, displacement isnt everything but some people like to say a bigger nuber. Like what sounds better "i have a nice 1.6L in my car" OR "I have a big 5.0L or 6.6L...." lol, bigger isnt always better but to some it just sounds better.
the bigger number doesnt sound better, nor the extra displacement it was just a comment simply based on heritage and meaning. the 4.6 is a great engine and i like it better performance wise than the 5.0 i was just saying itd of been nice to see the 302 back in the mustang espicialy with the retro styling. in the 60s nothing was cooler than a 68 mustang with a 302. just the look and sound was un mistakable. like how manufactures have flagship cars. that was the flagship engine of ford in my opinion. they used it in everything
I know, i'm not saying thats why you'd want the 5.0 or 4.6, i know its more about heritage and not size. I mean some people would like to say a biggernumber even though it doesnt really mean anything, sorry i didnt explain too well (and dont know how to, so you can ignore my post).
lol its cool atleast your polite about it. and yea i get what you were saying i was just trying to make it clear where i was coming from as to not get attacked for something stupid like displacement isnt everything like some retard try to do
and if i were going for displacement i would have said something like "ooo they should have put the 460 or 427-429 cj or scj in the new mustang" which would be nice to see as well but is pretty unrealistic for the mustang
I myself love bigger displacement engines, even if it doesnt mean there all that fast or better then other smaller engines. Like if its an older car i of course prefer some sort of V8 no matter the size (older as in 25+ years) but thats just me, dont even have a reason why.
First off, shut the hell up or act your age, pick one of the two. Second of
all you were the one who jumped the gun and called him a dick, so he has
EVERY right to call you out on it, to em and most likely everyone else
including him I'm sure that looked VERY much like you trying to cover your
own mistakes. You should have simply apologized and that been taht, but no
you have to be a stubborn hard-ass in some pathetic attempt to prove you
are justified in what you are saying, even if your being a dick. As I said
either act your age or just shut the hell up, because I'm sure none would
BTW you didn't clear diddly squat up except that your a dick.
ill act my age when you and him stop being pussies :fu:
I dont consider it competitive. Sorry. Why even bother using the 87-93 Fox chassis V8 Mustang in this argument (Plus it being over a 15 year old car...). Everyone knows it does low-mid 14s in the 1/4 mile quite easily. The new V6 4.0L stang still does it in the painstakingly slow mid 15 second range (I actually saw a 5spd convertible at the track go low 16s three times in one night...). There are 200+ - hp coupes on the market that could spank the new Mustang... Only thing they arent is RWD, rather FWD (but who gives a hoot when those FWD's spank it in every performance test). But still in the magical $20k mark. Matter fact Honda's new Civic Si coupe for '06 will sport 200hp (from an engine literally HALF the size of the 4.0L Ford), an LSD and 6spd tranny. A little person on my shoulder is telling me it will probably run circles around the new 4.0L stang and cost just as much (being under $20k). Why improve the GT 40hp but the V6 only 20hp... just seems silly. Next generation we'll see the GT improved to 350hp and the V6 to 235hp with this trend... I know a lot of people who wont buy V6 models because they're just a little TOO slow stock but they cant up the $ for a GT... lost buyers. They'd most certianly buy it given it had a few more ponies and was more competitive.
I wouldnt mind Ford putting 4v heads on the 4.0L. But then again how much power will really come out of it. The Taurus 3.0L DOHC 24v has only 200hp... While the SOHC 24v 3.0L from Honda is making 240hp. Just seems so much easier to ask for some help from the Asian guys for a good strong motor.
Umm, the Ford 2.5 liter 24 valve Duratech the Taurus engine is based on made 200 hp in my SVT Contour in stock form. The 200 hp (but more torque) from the 3 liter taurus engine isn't even CLOSE to tapped out. SVT Countour owners are getting 260-300 daily driver hp just using the SVT 2.5 liter parts on the Taurus 3.0 block. Even the same 3 liter Duratech in the Lincoln LS/Jag S type was making 230+ hp in smooth, non performance use. Ford just apparently saw no real need to make more hp from the Taurus version for the "primarily" rental/fleet market that car served.
So, what in it's price range is a better RWD coupe with similar
Becaeu of POTENTIAL. the v6 has as much potential than the Fox had (considering it's starting out with a better chassis and similar power)
If one is good, the other can't be bad. THAT'S why it gets brought up.
gee, you saw the heavier convertible go slowly? Who'da thunk it?
Painstakingly slow? And yet we can drive around and have huge amounts of fun in a stock RX7 GTU which does the quarter mile in exactly the same time! So how is one a fun sports coupe, and the other "painstakingly slow?" I don't give a flying F*CK what year one or the other is. Fun is fun,and if the same speed is fun in one, it can't be painfully slow in another! What part of that flies right the f*ck over your head????
On top of that, 99% of the driving publick does't do a f8cking drag race launch from every light. if I'm at the front of a line of cars at a light, even in my godawful slow hyundai Accent I can leave them in the dust with part throttle. EVERY time. As much fun as a huge hp level is, on teh street MOST people simply don't need and won't use it! I've driven the V6 and V8 '05 Mustangs. the V6 is more than adequate for everything but racetrack use, at a much lower price and insurance cost.
How many have YOU driven?
And yes, even the V6 can outhandle most FWD sport coupes and any in it's price range (so long as the tires are inflated properly. I will admit that as delivered, the tires are underinflated for better ride). Ford did an outstanding job of engineering the new chassis.
Struck the main nerve I see. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled
to mine. You can back yours up as well as I can back mine up. I drove the
05 V6 stang. It was NOT fun. My 1990 Accord is just as fun to drive as it
After you said it's the only RWD V6 coupe on the market in one post THEN say tell you another one that beats it that's RWD coupe in the next post is quite asinine. Also, saying it outhandles "most FWD sport coupes" Is another broad saying that probably isnt really that true. According to most places the COUPE GT holds a mid .8g on average between a 200ft/300ft skidpad and around 65-67mph pending whether it's a 600ft or 700ft slalom. Then a V6 coupe stang probably holds around a .8g-.82g and does a 600ft slalom around 62.5-63mph. That's absolutely nothing to write home about handling wise for a RWD sports car. To put that into perspective the SRT-4 holds .9g on a 300ft skidpad while slaloming at close to 67mph on a 600ft slalom. And this is a turbo four door FWD neon. The new Civic Si coupe is rumored to be pulling .9g too with a similar slalom. Not even going to go into the Evolution RS vs. The GT in handling... As the GT cant even come close to touching it in handling nor 1/4 mile.
Some average numbers for FWD sport coupes/hatches (in the $20,000 category)... skidpad - 300ft, slalom - 600ft.
Mazda 3s -
Slalom ~ 65mph
Mini Cooper S -
Skidpad ~ .85g
Slalom ~ 66.5mph
Scion tC -
Skidpad ~ .84g
Slalom ~ 62mph
Ford Focus SVT -
Skidpad ~ .87g
Slalom ~ 65.5mph
Toyota Celica GTS -
Skidpad ~ .88g
Slalom ~ 66mph
Honda Civic Si HFP -
Skidpad ~ .88g
Slalom ~ 66.5mph
This is not including cars like the Lancer Ralliart, Sentra SE-R Spec-V, SRT-4 and Mazdaspeed Protege (all in this category but not two door/hatch). As you can ssee numbers speak for themselves. The V6 Mustang doesnt outhandle any FWD sport two door/hatch on the market other than MAYBE the Scion tC...but it's close (not to mention the tC stickers at only $16,500; while most of these sticker close to $20k). You give the tC the factory option of the 18"/19" wheels with meatier tires and I'd go to bet it outhandles the V6 stang for sure. Most of those numbers above bests even the GT in handling.