Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by sweet~Low~93, Dec 31, 2003.
Nope, about $18k would be more realistic.
That would be the price that they would want it to be at. But not how much it would realisticly cost.
I find it amazing that its the first time in what, 25 years that the mustang has gotten a new chassis (boasting 100% rigidity increase over the old I might add), plus its being boosted to 300hp and being given a much better quality interior, and yet people still have enough to complain about to fill up 16 pages. Not putting the IRS on was a money issue, its a fact, they were worried people would whine about the price. Hell, people whine about made up prices for the '05 as it is. Go out and get an Eclipse GTS if you want a comparably priced IRS car. Otherwise, stfu.
Expressing a grievence is ok (I personally wish they had made IRS an option), but this is rediculous.
and "Nope, about $18k would be more realistic." A Camry LE costs $19K base with all 157 horses under the hood, but hey, I dont see why one couldnt make an 18K car with a 300hp v8.
There are those of us who feel the price issue is a fallacy and a trumped up argument.
And no..I won't stfu. That's the point of this thread, to complain about things on the 05 we don't like.
And no..I won't go buy an Eclipse. I'll just keep enjoying my 2000 GT and my 66 Fastback until Ford gives me a Mustang I want.
Yes there are. But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.
I don't believe anybody who advocates the IRS is saying it's not a factor, but I think it's being overblown to the point where people feel if the car had IRS...all of a sudden it's getting Cobra price territory.
as for the origional 2 questions, as far as I know, rear fuel doors are illegal for safety purposes, and yes 3rd taillights are manditory.
Also, the price issue isnt a fallacy, my dad is one of those exec. bean counters who dealt with the idea of the IRS on the Mustang. It went from standard, to option, to nada. It sucks, but building the car period was also on the line, so some compromise had to be made.
Hello I'm new.
I was so excited when I some the concept pictures for the new Mustang. I grew up loving this car and vowed to get one when I got older. My favorite is the 5.0 models. I once took my uncle's out on a joyride when I was 12. didnt' know how to drive a stick or nothin'--just hammered it like I knew what I was doing.
Enough with that. I took a trip to the local int'l car show to see the new Mustang cause they said it would be the production look. I was excited once I saw the car but I admit I was confused about why they deviated so much on the front end from what looked like would be very close to the concept look. After pondering very much on it's look and viewing more pictures online I must say that I'm disappointed.
I do have a little faith that they'll get back to the great look of the concept "teaser". What I did was composed an e-mail and sent it off to Ford's customer relations department to let them know I was a little disappointed. I was amazed I got a personal reply. It was encouraging.
So, I suppose I can ask you guys who would like them to get back to that concept design as soon as possible to send them a note. Maybe just a few words cause I'm sure they'll know what you're getting at.
I went to: https://www.customersaskford.com/KanaForm.asp?SourceSite=Ford&launchsite=fordVehicles
They just need a little more voices I bet.
Was just comparing the 2005 against the proto and think they really screwed up the car, the front is terrible, it looks nothing like the prototype, headlights, hood,way to flat, side view also looks bad to me, I would have purchased a 2005 if it looked like the prototype but now will keep my 2000, maybe for the rest of my life....
So you actually thought they were going to produce the concept?
Dear SVT, No I didn't think that, I just hoped that it would be at least close
Why is the 05 sooo long?
According to Ford, the mustang is longer to yield more interior room. Now assuming that the dimensions in the new MM&FF are the production numbers the 05 will not have that much more interior space, at all. The only big difference will be in the trunk volume, that's it.
Wheelbase 05=107.1 in 04=101.3in
Overall length 05=187.6 04=183.2
Overall height 05=54.5 04=53.1
Overall width 05=72.1 04=73.1
Front head room 05=38.6 04=38.1
Front leg room 05=42.7 04=42.6
Front shoulder room 05=55.4 04=53.6
Rear head room 05=35 04=35.5
Rear leg room 05=31 04=29.9
Read shoulder room 05=53.3 04=52.1
Trunk volume (c. ft.) 05=12.3 04=10.9
Umm, so where is the extra room again? The 05 is too long in my opinion. They need to make it small again, it looks smaller than the 04 in the pictures, but it's half a foot longer.
I love the car overall, it's just becoming too big.
If you weed through all the bs in the bumper thread below someone stated that the 05 car needed to be this long in order not to be classified as a compact. I don't know if that is true. What is interesting is to compare it to the BMW 3 series coupe, which has an almost identical wheelbase but is eleven inches shorter. I think the Mustang has about the same room up front, less leg room in back, but a longer hood and larger trunk.
Compared to the 04, the new car is supposed to feel a lot more spacious on the inside, but I see your point that it doesn't translate to dramatically different numbers. I think it will look proportional in person--substantial and muscular in an American kind of way.
Too long...next thing you know, 300 HP will be too much.
I thought the Mustang was not just a compact, but a subcompact. Mine is.
So is it a midsize now? When did this happen?
I don't know anything about these classifications. Hopefully someone else can shed some light on this.
lol dude bumper to bumper it's just 4.4 inches longer and it has .1 more inches in the front 1.1 more inches in the rear leg room and a trunk with almost 2 cubic feet more room. And who knows if they've added more room in the engine compartment(God I hope so)If that sends you into a tizzy then they must have done something really good.
It's not quite 4.5 inches longer. Is 4.5 inches enough to make it too long? Part of the trunk space may be attributed to the movement of the fuel tank.
Thats what has been bothering me about it. Its length reminds me a bit of the 70's stangs. Im short so I dont care how much interior room there is. The only place that needs more room is the engine bay. And who cares what class its in!!