Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > Vehicle Specific > Domestic Cars
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-17-2005, 01:40 AM   #1
aravnaik
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Ford Mustang

What do you guys think of the New Ford Mustang? I think it look pretty ugly. However, how does it do performance wise?

Last edited by aravnaik : 07-17-2005 at 01:41 AM. Reason: Wrong thread
aravnaik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2005, 01:48 AM   #2
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
The new Mustang is the best one yet, they tried to incorporate the old GT500 into it and did a helluva good job
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2005, 02:57 AM   #3
FordFromHell351
Banned
 
FordFromHell351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 854
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!
FordFromHell351 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2005, 05:49 AM   #4
TurboLag
CF's Bonafide Sonbitch
 
TurboLag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Morgantown, West Virginia. WVU stand up
Posts: 699
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.
__________________
-Alex

Quote:
I am crazy. But you know what else? I don't give a ****.
-Tupac
TurboLag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2005, 05:50 AM   #5
TurboLag
CF's Bonafide Sonbitch
 
TurboLag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Morgantown, West Virginia. WVU stand up
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordFromHell351
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!

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?
__________________
-Alex

Quote:
I am crazy. But you know what else? I don't give a ****.
-Tupac
TurboLag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2005, 06:25 AM   #6
car_crazy89
Part Time CFer
 
car_crazy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,849
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.
__________________

"Noone dies a virgin, life screws us all"
car_crazy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2005, 07:09 PM   #7
pik_d
CF not-so-Freak
 
pik_d's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Eastern USA
Posts: 802
hm, i just dont like the hood of the new mustang. the way it bulges upward a bit.

anyway, the thing is a beast... just not my style.
pik_d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 03:34 AM   #8
google.com
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: wilmington NC
Posts: 164
i think the new mustang looks like the old one
google.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 04:45 AM   #9
pik_d
CF not-so-Freak
 
pik_d's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Eastern USA
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by google.com
i think the new mustang looks like the old one
old one meaning... last year, or from the 60's?
pik_d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 04:55 AM   #10
Sick88Tbird
Master of the Fox-chassis
 
Sick88Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sicklerville, NJ
Posts: 578
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.
__________________
New Toy- Stone stock '88 T-bird Sport in need of some TLC

1988 Cougar XR-7- HO/T-5 conversion, cracked block prevented from reaching full potential.

RIP '88 T-Bird....14.1@98.7mph...best sleeper in So. Jersey, now it's taking a permanent dirt nap.
Sick88Tbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 04:59 AM   #11
TurboLag
CF's Bonafide Sonbitch
 
TurboLag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Morgantown, West Virginia. WVU stand up
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by google.com
i think the new mustang looks like the old one

Good call, smarty.
__________________
-Alex

Quote:
I am crazy. But you know what else? I don't give a ****.
-Tupac
TurboLag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 05:37 AM   #12
car_crazy89
Part Time CFer
 
car_crazy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboLag
Good call, smarty.
Hey well you never know, it might look like the new one
__________________

"Noone dies a virgin, life screws us all"
car_crazy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 08:04 PM   #13
Pythias
CF Extraordinaire
 
Pythias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio, U.S.
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by google.com
i think the new mustang looks like the old one

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.
Pythias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2005, 04:10 PM   #14
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravnaik
What do you guys think of the New Ford Mustang? I think it look pretty ugly. However, how does it do performance wise?

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 (coughCHEAPFORDcough).

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.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2005, 02:18 AM   #15
Sick88Tbird
Master of the Fox-chassis
 
Sick88Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sicklerville, NJ
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
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.
__________________
New Toy- Stone stock '88 T-bird Sport in need of some TLC

1988 Cougar XR-7- HO/T-5 conversion, cracked block prevented from reaching full potential.

RIP '88 T-Bird....14.1@98.7mph...best sleeper in So. Jersey, now it's taking a permanent dirt nap.
Sick88Tbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.