Don't look back!

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by Razer81, Aug 30, 2004.


  1. GinoGT

    GinoGT Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,895
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :stupid: Anyone looking for stupid crap like that is in the wrong part of the market. I'm sure some of the more geriatric-oriented vehicles would be glad to accomodate such features.

    God forbid someone would have to operate the functions of the car themselves. :rolleyes:
    #61
  2. Sean`03///Zed4

    Sean`03///Zed4 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think the new Mustang has outdated technology.

    In terms of new tech. we have drive by wire system i.e. the ECU controls the opening or closing of the throttle butterfly as in BMW, MB & all such European luxo /sport sedans. Not in Honda or Toyota though.

    It has vario cam which works like the Vanos system in BMW meaning the intake valves open early for greater torque at low rpms' and the valve timing is retarded at mid to high rpm's for the upper end horse power. It has the DOHC configuration with 3 valves per cylinder unlike the old school Chevy OHV pushrod technology and with two intakes it ensures greater acceleration and torque at low - mid rpms for greater acceleration and more mid range passing power (something which most of Mustang owners will spend their time in).
    It has one exhaust valve like the MB cars which ensures quicker optimum engine temperatures.

    The chassis has >50% rigidity compared to the Fox platform. The front suspension is a lower l-arm, Mc Pherson setup as in BMW which works best with the optimum 50-50 wt distribution something the 05 Mustang enjoys!!

    IRS, well the deal with IRS is it works best when the subframe is strong and the parent unibody chassis has extremely good elasticity. The latter was lacking in the Fox chassis and the former has been a problem with 92-95 E36 and early model E46 (1999-2000). The deal with IRS is the subframe should not crack as a result of metal fatigue under constant lateral load or stress and the unibody chassis should not flex under load. And to get it done right pricing becomes a factor especially for torquey RWD cars.

    Hence the panhard set 3-link with the front l-arm McPherson setup is good enough to produce road holding index in the .87-.88 g's. This is in high price sports car territory like the Maseratti (0.85 g's) and definitely better than the IRS Lexus SC430.

    The list goes on and as far as technology goes the new Mustang sets an example.
    #62
  3. RICKS

    RICKS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems that there's a trend among the "05 Mustang sucks" naysayers, i.e. one who thinks it's somehow NOT lame and middle-school to have some chick make a jack-off motion beneath his name, another calls himself "Bizzatch" with a whopping 7 posts. And think to yourself.... why would anybody who thinks the '05 Mustang is an "abomination" be hanging out on..... the friggin 2005+ Mustang forum??? Sorry, but I haven't been spending time at the Scion forum lately. I haven't been clicking into the new GTO forums, or Tiburon forums and posting, "Hi, glad to be here. Your cars suck. Mind if I hang around here?" Again, I'm not flaming youth, but I am flaming maturity. What the Mustang is doing in '05 is NOT a step into the past, it's a giant step back to where it should have been all along. An evolutionary design of what the original would have evolved into today had Ford not completely tossed everything into the trash and gone off on a styling tangent in 1979. An example of what the car would have been today if Ford had not decided to shorten a Fairmont chassis and wrap it in sheetmetal that resembled a generic box with 4 wheels and 4 headlights in 1979. You want something "forward thinking or innovative"? Like WHAT? Define that for me. Indiana, you spent alot of money on, and then spent money modifying, one of the most archaic and aged designs sitting on new car lots today, short of the Hummer H1 and the Jeep CJ7. So what does that make your 2002 Mustang Indiana???????? You want something cutting edge, but you plunked down $22 grand on a Fairmont with lipstick and a wig?? A car with relatively poor fit and finish compared to today's standards, an interior virtually unchanged since 1994, and architecture that probably pre-dates YOU? I can see that you're a real "forward thinker"... (Geez, and now I'm going to get it from all the SN-95 owners out there who don't want to hear smack about their cars, even though I'm one of those SN-95 owners myself!! LOL)
    #63
  4. szer0

    szer0 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think v6 owners maybe. But most GT drivers I see are well over 25. Usually 40+.
    #64
  5. Bizzatch

    Bizzatch New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was being sarcastic in my thread... sure I don't post much because most of the time I read what people have to say...I think the mustang of 04 is much better looking than the new one... although I am optimistic about the performance of the 05 that's all I have to go on... So what youre saying is just because I don't agree with your stellar opinion on how great the 05 is I am not allowed to voice my opinion on how ****ty I think it looks? While we are on opinons I think SCION sucks. :rlaugh: I am a mustang fan through and through dont get me wrong but I think they've made a mistake this year. And for the record I hang here to see what others think about the performance that have actually test driven the car and to see the occasional pics of how convertible is going to look. One last thing... try to look at things outside the box and just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong. Which was the point I've been trying to make all along...Thanks for illustrating my point.
    #65
  6. RICKS

    RICKS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When the 1994 Mustang was introduced, tons Fox-faithfuls thought it looked "****ty". Once it was out for a year or two, they got used to the new style, it grew on them, and they learned to love it. The same thing happened in 1999. I was here on Stangnet. What a fuss there was, everybody echoed your same comment "Ford made a mistake this year". Well, Mustang sales got a HUGE shot in the arm and went way up, and those folks were wrong, and they actually wound up getting used to the new design and loving that car too. I was one of those people who trashed the '99, and it taught me a valuable lesson. You told me I should look at things "outside the box". Well, IMHO, you're the one in the box. You're married to the outgoing car, and having a hard time adjusting to a radical departure. Give it time, give it an open mind, and you may laugh at yourself in a year or two just like I laughed at myself and ate ENORMOUS amounts of crow after I had damned and doomed the 1999 Mustang. Sometimes a new bodystyle, to some people, is like tasting food blindfolded. Somebody can put a piece of filet mignon on your fork, but if you were expecting fish, your first reflex will be to gag on it. Seriously, I truly think that it's the same thing with cars sometimes. Of course, sometimes a car comes out that you gag at and NEVER get used to (Aztec, new Camry Solara, etc.etc..), but sometimes it takes awhile to see that the designers were a step or two ahead of you. I'm just babbling, sorry I didn't recognize your sarcasm. Believe me, I have an open mind. I just have limited patience with closed minds.
    #66
  7. XtorT'r

    XtorT'r New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only 2 people I know tat own 99+ GT's are right around 25. all the v6 owners are women.. the ones I know anyway.
    #67
  8. XtorT'r

    XtorT'r New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I absolutly HATED what Ford did to the Mustang for 99'. What can I say, it grew on me alot.
    #68
  9. Omegalock

    Omegalock New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The 05 has a love it or hate it styling. But unfortinately for those of you that hate it you will be seeing a whole helluva lot of them real soon. :)
    We need to make a freakin database of everybody that says they think it's ugly so in 3 years we can compare who owns one to said list to see who "changed their minds".
    #69
  10. Indiana

    Indiana New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, I should have just insulted your children. I think that would have caused less emotion. ( for those of you with quick tempers, that's is joke).

    Look, I'm not going to change anyones mind, and that's not my goal. I just saw that someone stated their opinion, and was getting flamed for it. If I'm not mistaken, the forum is called "2005+ Mustang," not "Only happy thoughts about 2000+ Mustang."

    Now, as to my car being outdated. Yes, it is. That's why I am disappointed that during the big re-design, they didn’t really improve much as far as I’m concerned. The sn95 interior needs some work, but I don’t see how anyone can honestly say that the new one is an improvement. First of all, the stereo/heating and A/C panel is pretty much exactly the same, only upside down. An improvement would have been getting the controls out from behind the gearshift.

    The center console should have been integrated with the dash, and angled towards the driver. As it is, it looks like the console was an afterthought. The placement of the tach and speedo don’t look like they will do much to correct the fact that they are not easy to see.

    If anything, the “new” interior looks way less refined than the current one. I present to you, exhibit A:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    The new interior is blocky and does not flow together. It is squarish and crude looking. The shift lever looks like it is still too far forward, and while they did make the console storage/ arm rest shorter, the cup holder is in an even worse place than it is now.

    What do the following cars have in common?
    2004 GTO
    MUSTANG COBRA
    Nissan 350
    Subaru WRX
    Corvette
    Ferrari Modena
    Porsche Boxster

    You guessed it, IRS. I wonder if there is a reason for that? And they will pretty much all out run a GT.

    So, if I get better LCAs, remove the UCAs, get a panhard bar and coilovers, then my car will have a “modern” suspension?

    Yep, that’s about what it is, but when I bought it, it was about the only choice in sporty American cars. I am I a bad guy for wanting an American car that isn’t second rate?

    Speaking of which someone said the Mustang is not a sports car. That is why I put it in quotes, I know someone would have heart burn with that. O.K. then what is it? Don’t tell me it’s a muscle car, when it is slower than a Subaru. The Lightning is more of a muscle car.

    BTW Ricks, you certainly aren’t flaming youth. I’m 40 years old, but I haven’t yet started turning into one of those dried up old men who think that everything should stay like it was since before their hair turned gray. BTW, lighten up. It’s just a car. Oh yeah, please forgive me for the sin of expecting more from an American legend.
    #70
  11. jasonlee0704

    jasonlee0704 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They're all more expensive than a Mustang.

    Let's all take a moment and remember what's made the Mustang a legend over the last 30 years:

    A cheap... modifiable... performance car... with some extra storage space behind the front seats.

    If you're mentioning "refinement" in a Mustang forum, you're looking for the wrong car. The Mustang, as it rolls off the dealer's lot, isn't supposed to be a slick roadster. It's about getting HP and torque for a relatively cheap price, in an easily modifiable package that'll let the hobbyists turn it into a road racer, a drag racer, a show car, or whatever else they want to do with it.

    For it's price point, the Mustang's pretty darn good for what it is. But you do get what you pay for, and expecting a ton of extraneous features in a $20-25K car that 95% of Mustang drivers won't even notice or care for is a bit unrealistic.

    If you want IRS on a Mustang, there's aftermarket kits you can install for the SN95 Mustangs, and I'm sure there will be kits out for the 05 Mustangs, too. If you want slick handling and hand-of-God brakes, there are aftermarket kits for that. If you want a 1000 HP car that'll turn in a sub-9 second ET, you can modify your Mustang for that, too.

    In short, if you're looking for a car that's perfect out of the box, the Mustang ain't it. Go buy a Ford GT, or a Porsche Boxster, or a Ferrari Modena - it's much closer to what you're looking for.
    #71
  12. spectravp

    spectravp New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who cares what the guy next to you likes or doesn't like? No need to flame anyone. A lot of people, particularly those in the younger age bracket, buy things to try to be cool. Need proof? Look at how many kids put $60 Fart Pipe on their exhaust cause they want to sound and look cool. Yeah, as cool as a lawn mower. How many 40 year olds do you see with that crap on? Zip! How many, true performance cars, do you see with that crap on? Zip!

    But, I don't care if anyone wants that crap on their car. Whatever makes them happy. I'll buy my 05 not to be cool, not because everyone else likes it. Quite the contrary; I'll buy it because I like it. I could care less if 99.9% of all people hate it. If I want green f**kin pokadots on it, I'll do it. Buy what you like. Period.
    #72
  13. Indiana

    Indiana New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't care about refinement, I would be happy if you could buy a new Stang with simple, easy to see guages, one seat and no carpet. Someone was ripping the current ones for being crude, and that seemed pretty disingenuous considering the new ones seem worse to me.

    FWIW the reason I bought one in the first place was for all the reasons you mentioned. I wanted a cheap toy. It would be great if you could trade niceties for performance at the factory.
    #73
  14. RICKS

    RICKS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I honestly say it's a huge improvement. So there's one. If you haven't seen the interior in-person, the quality of materials, fit, finish, and overall richness of the interior is like comparing a BMW to a Chev Cavalier. Now, you may have control-placement concerns, and I can respect that, but as far as the controls themselves why would Ford re-invent the wheel just for the sake of it. If it's got good functionality and intuitive quality, then they evolve the design making sure cosmetic styling and "feel" stays top-notch. No "tilting" the center stack towards the driver please, so that everybody who rides in my car isn't leaning over the console with their head bumping my shoulder while they fuddle with the radio and A/C. Been there, done that, in my '93 Vette. If you check most upper-end cars, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Rolls even, they don't do that crap. The "airplane cockpit" style is passe'. As far as "refinement", we'll have to agree to disagree. I see nothing refined about the current Mustang interior. To be quite blunt, it looks like a what would happen if a plastic elephant took a plastic dump. All that curving and blobbyness, and vast expanses of monotone plastic is just econo-box looking to me anymore. Even my '69 Mach, from which the 94-04 interior was inspired, has alot more crisp edge and contrast and materials in it than the newer car does. I don't equate blocky and squarish shapes with "crude" or "unrefined". From a family of machinists, I actually equate it more with precision and industrial design. The dash looks like it could have been machined from solid billet, the 94-04 dash looks like it was squeezed from a tube and baked hard. So you like curvy interiors, I'm dead tired of them. That's all we got from Ford and GM in the 90's, and it's just tiring to me. An old, dead trend. Just as Ford ditched the old F-150's oval-oid interior for a crisp and edgy and classy new design. Even the new C6 Vette, while not a revolutionary turnaround, is attempting to get away from the gimmicky curvy all-integrated plasticky looks-like-it-was-popped-from-a-single-mold look that the C5 had. And lastly, while I would also prefer IRS, let's get off of the notion that somehow anything with IRS is light-years faster around a road course. I just flew to Canada last week, had the opportunity to run a new 2.2K road-course in Dunnville, Ontario. It was an event put on by a local classic car dealer I'm friends with, for their customers and friends. It was on my birthday, so the plane ticket was my gift to myself. Anyhow, we had open access to a new M3 paddle-shift (loved the car, hate the paddles, stick-shift & clutch for me please), and CTS-V Caddy (SUPER car, absolutely top-notch, kudos to Caddy), a new '04 Mach 1 (orange), a Crossfire (surprised me, not a bad little car), an SRT-4 (junk, a Neon with a motor), and an Acura TSX (yawn). I see the B.S. flags coming, but let me tell you, that Mach friggin WORKED. Yes, the M3 had the superior feel and confidence, and a bit more grip, but regardless of factory published horsepower (and the M3 was a heavier convertible) the Mach was a bit stronger running out of the corners and on the straights, and was able to hang real well with the M3 in the corners. On the high-speed sweepers, the BMW was pretty sick though. It was tough to run a quicker lap time in the M3 than you could get in the Mach, seriously. Everybody there, including the two pro drivers on hand, had high praise for how the Mustang could hang with the M3, and had a leg up on the Caddy, around the track (yes, I know, 400 h.p., but it didn't feel faster than the Mach, the weight of the car eats up that LS6 power) I HIGHLY doubt that a 350Z or Boxter or Subie, and DEFINATELY not a GTO, could hang in there with a Mach 1 on a road couse. I was impressed. It took a lap to get comfortable in that car (compared to the CTS and M3, that are so communacative), but once you got a feel for it, you could fly. I didn't get out of shape once. Solid axle.
    #74
  15. Bizzatch

    Bizzatch New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well RICKS you've got me there on thinking outside the box I admit I am trying desperately to get used to this design style and thats another reason I hang out here as well... This year it seems harder than the past couple bodystyle changes. The transition from the 93-94 was hard for me as well.. the 98-99 wasn't too bad because I've always liked the current design. :D
    #75
  16. XtorT'r

    XtorT'r New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like te ergonomics of having controls behind the shifter. Very easy for me to one finger :banana: them as I am Shifting.
    #76
  17. RICKS

    RICKS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everybody is different when it comes to their adaptability to new looks. Ever noticed that when something new comes out and it looks great to you immediately, that you're bored stiff with it in no time at all? Sometimes in order to have a lasting design, you can't play it safe and just churn out something only aimed to meet expectations. There's been alot of what I would consider BRAVE designs by automakers lately. Some are working, some aren't, but it's cool that they're throwing their johnson on the line like that. Bangle's BMW's. Risky, and, still not exactly making sense to me...The new GTO...totally playing it safe, and need I say more? The Chrysler 300. Big risk, big leap of faith. Huge design success. The Caddy CTS was a HUGE risk, and boy is that risk working. Yes, it's controversial, you love it or hate it, but that styling theme is propelling Caddy like a shotgun. It makes you re-assess and re-define your own sense of style and taste, and I've really grown to like it. Which is funny, because I hated it the first time I saw. But what the hell, most people hate coffee, beer, spinach, etc.. the first sip or taste they ever have. Think about how many fantastic cars have been made that you went "yuck" at the first time you saw it. In retrospect, it was because you weren't prepared for the shock. Once you have time to simmer on something, good design will creep into your head and make itself comfortable.
    #77
  18. Enzora

    Enzora The member formerly known as Nazgul

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What? The tradition of Ford's cost-cutting as much as possible, or maybe their tradition of 4x4 styling? And the modern twist of ripping off previous designs, courtesy of J. Mays, I presume?

    Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the 05. I much prefer the smoother incorporation of classic cues into a more modern design, a la SN-95. Too bad most people don't share my appreciation for subtlety. It seems you gotta hit them with a brick (which is shaped quite similarly to the 05's front end) for them to notice the connection.
    #78
  19. Wylde

    Wylde New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Get into the 21st century buddy...I could say a lot more, but why bother! It's like trying to talk sense into my ex wife.
    #79
  20. RICKS

    RICKS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, the SN-95 was a rounded-off "jelly bean" design that Ford did back when the jelly bean thing was the hot new thing, and it hit the bulls-eye then. It's not the hot thing anymore, as evidenced by their heavy attempt in '99 to give it more edge and character, and as evidenced by all the other new product coming out from all manufacturers. People want some character and a face on the front of their car again, not just the leading edge of a blob. I appreciate subtlety, BIG time. That's why I like the absence of any fake side scoops, fake hood scoop, and the overall clean design of the new car. Many here have panned it for being too "plain". I don't think that just because it resembles the styling of the classics makes it "hit you with a brick" un-subtle. When I see a new 911 Porsche, or an SL Mercedes, I don't see a car that shocks you with it's ties to the past. I see an extremely graceful evolution of a classic original design. And no, the Mustang is no SL Mercedes, BUT, I think it now has the same emotions and attitude that the original legend did. You know, if enough people want something different, all new design that doesn't reach back so heavily, then call Ford and tell 'em to wrap different sheet metal around the S-197 platform and call it a Maverick! (an apt name for a forward-thinking car that forges its own path).
    #80

Share This Page