The Complaint Department

63_Fairlane said:
Miatas can hold there own on a road course or auto-cross, but I agree the Z3 was a much better car. Then again, the Z3 was really an MG. BMW "borrowed" the design from MG in the early 90's.

As for the price of cars, they have followed the price of all other durable goods including houses. Houses that cost 20K thirty years ago are in the 120-150k range now. I agreed that the level of inflation is rediculous, but it is across the board.

You also have to look at the content of the car. A new 05 will be equiped with at least a 6 speaker CD/MP3 stereo with XM as an option, airconditioning, overdive, airbags, three point seatbelts, possibly leather, 17 inch tires, 12.5 inch front brakes, antilock, taction control, halogens(possibly HIDs, 3 valve overhead cam heads, fuel injection, stock 300 HP (something on the order of ~400 HP by the old gross standard of the 1960's), windows that actually roll up and seal, etc...

So you are paying for some engineering in there somewhere:)

By the way, how far from Greenville do you live?

In Greenville.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


They may have most of the parts. But I've given up on doing all the research it would take. Since it sounds like with the new cammer motor they are going to have wiring to make it easy. I should be able to get a hold of one of those and possibly modify it for a mod motor. Though I am not certain I am going to a mod motor yet. Just leaning that way.
 
ttown said:
Sorry I posted Jim, seems you just want to argue. You claim a 300hp car is too much and then you want to compare gas mileage to a 4 or 6 cyclinder car of the 60's :shrug: . Sorry don't follow you logic on that one, some new cars with 4 and 6 cyclinder engines are getting 50mpg but what does that have to do with a performance car?

I can tell you for a fact my 66 w/289 4v (BTW 225hp NOT 300hp) and 69 351/4v maybe got 15mpg and the 351 got better gas mileage since I always drove it above 70mph.
My mileage figure are right on for cars with that HP range and don't forget in 1973 they started figuring HP differently, a 300hp car today is about equal to a 350/375hp car of the 60's. :flag:

What are you comparing? You I-6 Mustang with the new GT, no wonder you think there too high. You should be on the 6 cyclinder talk thread.

250k miles on a car from the 60's with 60's parts?:lol: Most people traded before 50k because they couldn't rely on them anymore. Since your running better oil, better gas (non-leaded), and better parts you can now rebuild your 60's car to be more like a new one but your sure not using 60's technology are you.

289 4V D-Code engine was certainly not 4 or 6 cylinders. My first 65 was a V-8. (I don't know of any 4-cylinder Ford cars in the 60s... do you?) And I ran nothing but unleaded gas in it. 100 octane unleaded... darn near impossible to find today. And I was satisfied with the 21 mpg, since the car was very fast!! :o)

You are right about better mileage at high speed on some cars. The "slow down and save gas" just ain't always true. In fact, my current car I have to downshift if I go below 60, so it uses more gas slower, in 5th gear or less.

As for the second Mustang - as I said 178,000 and no major work on it before I put it into storage. No big deal, just normal on a properly cared for car. And no "non 60s" parts, just routine maintenance. I could list a lot more.
 
JimF65 said:
289 4V D-Code engine was certainly not 4 or 6 cylinders. My first 65 was a V-8. (I don't know of any 4-cylinder Ford cars in the 60s... do you?)

The 1961 Mustang I concept car was a mid engine I-4. So yes, I can think of a Mustang with a 4 cyl in it from the 60's. :D
 
tylers65 said:
The 1961 Mustang I concept car was a mid engine I-4. So yes, I can think of a Mustang with a 4 cyl in it from the 60's. :D

You are correct, almost. Actually it was a Taunus V-4. Blew everything away at Watkins Glen, as I remember. You are right, but I was thinking of American production cars. Should have said so.
 
JimF65 said:
You are correct, almost. Actually it was a Taunus V-4. Blew everything away at Watkins Glen, as I remember. You are right, but I was thinking of American production cars. Should have said so.

I knew what you meant, I just had to be a jack ass for a minute. I am feeling much better now. :D

You seem to have a better memory than I do. My wife calls me the Mustang Encyclopedia because I rattle off so much useless Mustang info all the time. I just can't believe you remembered the Taunus V-4.

You must be REALLY OLD :D
 
tylers65 said:
I knew what you meant, I just had to be a jack ass for a minute. I am feeling much better now. :D

You seem to have a better memory than I do. My wife calls me the Mustang Encyclopedia because I rattle off so much useless Mustang info all the time. I just can't believe you remembered the Taunus V-4.

You must be REALLY OLD :D

>chuckle< Thanks a lot!! Just applied for SS last week (early), so many may think so. But I'm a modern oldfart... Applied on line!!! Actually, I'll be 62 in March. Not too old to enjoy a fast car!!! (but I like s l o w boats, as in sail). I was 22 when I bought my first Mustang. 25 when I bought the one I have now... for $950. :)
 
JimF65 said:
>chuckle< Thanks a lot!! Just applied for SS last week (early), so many may think so. But I'm a modern oldfart... Applied on line!!! Actually, I'll be 62 in March. Not too old to enjoy a fast car!!! (but I like s l o w boats, as in sail). I was 22 when I bought my first Mustang. 25 when I bought the one I have now... for $950. :)
Hmmmm I wonder if I'll be telling a bunch of young punks 40 years from now....I bought the Mustang I have now for....27k and watch them all go whooaaa....that's cheap. :)
 
351CJ said:
That is correct, the original Mustang concept car had a V4.

I know, we had been discussing it through several posts and then someone had to pipe in and say the exact same thing that had been said 3 posts prior. Essentially I was being a sarcastic jerk.
 
tylers65 said:
I know, we had been discussing it through several posts and then someone had to pipe in and say the exact same thing that had been said 3 posts prior. Essentially I was being a sarcastic jerk.

Sorry, I have not read all of the prior posts on this thread. And its a good thing I have not, this thread gets my blood boiling so much that I've been avoiding reading it, lest I break most of StangNet's new rules.
 
tylers65 said:
I know, we had been discussing it through several posts and then someone had to pipe in and say the exact same thing that had been said 3 posts prior. Essentially I was being a sarcastic jerk.

At least you admitted it. Seriuosly. I had not read the entire post until it was to late. Sorry
 
disclaimer: i didnt take the time to read the whole thread, sorry if someone already said this.

i love everything except those damn ugly mufflers. does anyone else think there is something fundamentally wrong with being able to see the mufflers behind the rear valence? is there any way that an aftermarket company could come up with a kit that puts the muffs back under the car, where they belong?

:nice: mustang
:notnice: import style mufflers
 
I guess the mufflers don't bother me all that much. They are there, and that is that. There is no room under the fuel tank area in front of the axle, and I wouldn't want those things that close to each other.

I do think there can be things done to improve the situation:
a: high temp paint / powder coated black mufflers, with 3 inch (and no bigger than that) rolled stainless tips. Draw the eye to the tips, not the mufflers.

b: flat mufflers, such as flowmasters, (can be painted, as part a) that don't stick down so far under the bumper. ( I think that those painted black would actually have some "Street Cred."

c: Aftermarket rolled-under bumper that looks like the concept's rear bumper, which has tips coming out through circular holes. (like 65-66 GTs) Likely to be made, me thinks.

I would be looking for some sleeker, round-er mirrors. those billboards are a little bit of a sore thumb.
 
Is me the only one...

who thinks that ford messed up things with THAT 2005 mustang?

as i saw the gt concept a few months ago in a car-magazine i thought "awesome - that car MUST be mine",
it looks great, e.g. the head- and the taillights, the air-inlets on the hood and the side, and so on.

and now?
the headlights are way to big, and the taillights way to small - if u ask me.
and on the gt - why are there 4 lights?
i think this looks very bad.
all the bumpers look so "normal" and not that "brutal" they were on the concept.

now the questions: what do you think?
would it be possible to build a gt with the lights and the bumpers from the concept?

will there be companies, that think like me =), and bring the right parts out for your own gt concept?


so long: weed


p.s: sorry for my english =)
 
2005 mustang ...hmmm

Like you, that concept car really got me excited. But I am somewhat underwhelmed by the '05 mustang. I think the glass cutouts in the rear roof pillars are neat, tho. Maybe it'll take a while for the new style to grow on me, just like the SN95's. One thing I've learned since the Mach 1 is to beware of Ford's PR blitz and hype. I can wait til the "07's come out.
 
People seem to forget that the concept car is pretty much built from scratch with no expense spared. To build a production car like that would cost a fortune. And it would cost a fortune to buy one. Things needed to be cheapened on the production version to make it affordable and easy to mass produce.

Having said that, I am disappointed witht he final product. I see it and I don't think of the Mustang heritage. I think wow they really made an ugly car. If you look at the car from the non Mustang lover's point of view and don't think of it as a Mustang then I think a lot of people would notice that the looks don't stand on their own. The approval of the car seems to rely on the fact that it is a Mustang. I am sure some people like the loooks. But personally I feel Ford dropped the ball on this redesign. Oh well. :shrug: