what would you like to see for future mustangs
- Thread starter Eos
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Hey 351CJ,
Don't be that critical about the Mustangs that were built back in the 1960's and early 70's. They were far better looking and much faster than the junk Mustangs which were built thruout the mid and late 1970's, throut the 1980's and thruout the 1990's. The closest that Ford has come to building a really nice looking and powerful Mustang that comes even close to the ones which were built during the 1960's and early 70's is the new body style which came out in 1999-2004.
The current 1999-2004 Mustang is the balls. It's better than the ones that were built from 1974-1998. The 1974-1998 Mustangs were butt ugly, very underpowered and they didn't even look like a Mustang. Overall, they looked like a P.O.S. and had weak engines and were not fast at all.
And I also say, who gives a flying f**k about the 20,000 mile tires or the frequently needed valve adjustments that the 1960's and early 70's Mustangs needed. They were still nicer looking cars and faster than the $hit Mustangs that Ford built for the last 25 years up until 1999. If Ford goes back to making an ugly rounded gooky Japanese looking Mustang that looks like an Eclipse just like it did from the years 1994-1998, then the retards at Ford who designed these cars should be shot. And that goes the same for the retards at Ford who previously ruined the Mustang's design and who also built the P.O.S. underpowered and boxy looking Mustang from the years 1974-1993. Let's face the truth. The Mustang was molestered from 1974-1998. It's design was horrible and it's power was embarrassing if compared to the 1960's and early 70's Mustang designs and power ratings.
I just wanted to clear up this issue regarding the person in here who said that the Mustangs that were built in the 1960's and early 70's were not as good as the later built Mustang vehicles.This is NOT true. The 1960's and early 70's Mustangs were FAR BETTER and probably the BEST Mustangs EVER BUILT up until the current 1999-2004 body style. End of story!
Don't be that critical about the Mustangs that were built back in the 1960's and early 70's. They were far better looking and much faster than the junk Mustangs which were built thruout the mid and late 1970's, throut the 1980's and thruout the 1990's. The closest that Ford has come to building a really nice looking and powerful Mustang that comes even close to the ones which were built during the 1960's and early 70's is the new body style which came out in 1999-2004.
The current 1999-2004 Mustang is the balls. It's better than the ones that were built from 1974-1998. The 1974-1998 Mustangs were butt ugly, very underpowered and they didn't even look like a Mustang. Overall, they looked like a P.O.S. and had weak engines and were not fast at all.
And I also say, who gives a flying f**k about the 20,000 mile tires or the frequently needed valve adjustments that the 1960's and early 70's Mustangs needed. They were still nicer looking cars and faster than the $hit Mustangs that Ford built for the last 25 years up until 1999. If Ford goes back to making an ugly rounded gooky Japanese looking Mustang that looks like an Eclipse just like it did from the years 1994-1998, then the retards at Ford who designed these cars should be shot. And that goes the same for the retards at Ford who previously ruined the Mustang's design and who also built the P.O.S. underpowered and boxy looking Mustang from the years 1974-1993. Let's face the truth. The Mustang was molestered from 1974-1998. It's design was horrible and it's power was embarrassing if compared to the 1960's and early 70's Mustang designs and power ratings.
I just wanted to clear up this issue regarding the person in here who said that the Mustangs that were built in the 1960's and early 70's were not as good as the later built Mustang vehicles.This is NOT true. The 1960's and early 70's Mustangs were FAR BETTER and probably the BEST Mustangs EVER BUILT up until the current 1999-2004 body style. End of story!
Ron Jeremy said:
I agree EXCEPT for it was 1979-1998
But I do love all the mustangs some of them just had to grow on me more then others i.e the fox and the early sn 95's before the 99 came out. I think ford needs to pay more attention to the american car enthusiasts. We dont want to see "*** designs" Notice most cars look like teardrops now days. We don't want the import look, if we did we would all drive honda's but we drive mustangs not honda's so we want them to look like mustangs.I agree with you 100% FastMustangII.
The teardrop shaped cars are ALL ugly. The idiots who buy them are stupid and they are blind. Who the F**k in their right mind would want to drive an ugly rounded tear drop shaped 200HP Japanese/Korean/American Ricer car that is underpowered and overpriced when they can own a 260HP Mustang GT or a 390HP Cobra? It shows you how stupid and braindead young people are nowadays. Too much rap music has made mush out of their brains. Idiots!
The teardrop shaped cars are ALL ugly. The idiots who buy them are stupid and they are blind. Who the F**k in their right mind would want to drive an ugly rounded tear drop shaped 200HP Japanese/Korean/American Ricer car that is underpowered and overpriced when they can own a 260HP Mustang GT or a 390HP Cobra? It shows you how stupid and braindead young people are nowadays. Too much rap music has made mush out of their brains. Idiots!
SVTdriver
Founding Member
fastmustangII said:I agree EXCEPT for it was 1979-1998
Funny my 97 Cobra never gets mistaken for an import.
Ron Jeremy said:
You need to go back and read my posts again. But to point out a couple specific items.
1. I was not talking about 70's, 80's or 90's Mustangs. The comparison was between a 1960's Mustang and a current Mustang 2003 - 2004. I specifically said that peoples memories are so fond of 1960's cars because the 1970's were so horrible. In the 1970's Ford and the other auto manufacturers had a lot more to worry about other than performance. Problems they faced were a rapid forced implementation of emissions & safety requirements buy the US government, a severe recession and extended bear stock market that caused auto sales to really tank and 2 energy / gas crisis's. Sound's like you're too young to have ever waited in a gas line for 2+ hours.
2. To use your somewhat crude language "Who gives a fling f**k about the 20K mile tires" that get flats every month, doing valve adjustments every 2K - 5K miles, carb adustments, timing adjustments, plug & point changes, etc. is anyone who actually used one of those muscle cars as a daily driver.
3. As I pointed out, the majority of the 60's cars sold were under-powered, uncomfortable, ill handling slugs. Look up how many 427 Fords were actually sold in street cars, how few Boss 429's were sold etc. You're remembering the best cars of the era and forgetting about what junks 90% of the cars sold back then were. The simple fact is the average 2003 model year car is unbelievably better than the average 1960's car.
Bone Racing
New Member
i wana see this
4.0 v6 200hp
4.6 3v GT 300hp+
5.4 cobra, yeah the 331
the 351 IMO should be saved for special editions like the next COBRA R
4.0 v6 200hp
4.6 3v GT 300hp+
5.4 cobra, yeah the 331
the 351 IMO should be saved for special editions like the next COBRA R
65fastback2+2
New Member
*cough* well, atleast we know how to tell when we see a steal on an AC Shelby Cobra 427 
I know no 03 cobra would loose to a ac 427 right? *cough*
Actually, the 60's cars werent bad. The problem is, improvements make them seem bad. Kinda like when you got that top of the line computer in 1996, and it was SOOOOOOO fast, and now your 2002 computer is slow. Does that make the 1996 computer any more of a piece of junk? Wasnt it great in its time? YES. And there are many things on my 65 fastback I absolutely love and would not get a new one because of em.
#1. Ability and ease to work on. I just pop the hood, crawl in there next to my 289 and begin work. I dont have to worry about messing up hoses and sensors and electrical wires.
#2. computers. I absolutely hate computers in cars because of my 65. We have 4 other cars that are newer and have efi and ecu's. 2 of em ping because the timing computer and mechanism is worn out and wont adjust the timing right. I dont have to worry about that on mine.
The 60's cars were wonderful. Many had plenty of power, were comfortable, and handle really well for old tech. Everyone always says old stangs handle bad, and yet I havent had a problem with mine, and its original stock, and I have 2 VW's to compare it too. It has plenty of getup for stock. prolly lay down a 15.5 in the 1/4. Spins the tires with no powerbrake. It stops great, has factory original front disk brakes, power steering, and air conditioning. has bright lights, blinkers. I would rather rely on my 65 than any other car, because of the fact if one thing goes wrong, the whole car wont shut down as in newer cars. Old ones are also nearly indestructable. And I know. I tried to throw the tranny of a 66 f350 I6 4spd on the ground for 2 years solid. And the truck NEVER even acted like i was trying to beat it. All this, and my 65 is my daily driver. Best part about it is, the interior, which is the part of the car you see and deal with the most, is so awesome, all that shiney chrome, its so pretty. Not like new mustangs interior. and as a bonus, no sound deadening, so I get to hear and feel my 289 roar
I know no 03 cobra would loose to a ac 427 right? *cough*Actually, the 60's cars werent bad. The problem is, improvements make them seem bad. Kinda like when you got that top of the line computer in 1996, and it was SOOOOOOO fast, and now your 2002 computer is slow. Does that make the 1996 computer any more of a piece of junk? Wasnt it great in its time? YES. And there are many things on my 65 fastback I absolutely love and would not get a new one because of em.
#1. Ability and ease to work on. I just pop the hood, crawl in there next to my 289 and begin work. I dont have to worry about messing up hoses and sensors and electrical wires.
#2. computers. I absolutely hate computers in cars because of my 65. We have 4 other cars that are newer and have efi and ecu's. 2 of em ping because the timing computer and mechanism is worn out and wont adjust the timing right. I dont have to worry about that on mine.
The 60's cars were wonderful. Many had plenty of power, were comfortable, and handle really well for old tech. Everyone always says old stangs handle bad, and yet I havent had a problem with mine, and its original stock, and I have 2 VW's to compare it too. It has plenty of getup for stock. prolly lay down a 15.5 in the 1/4. Spins the tires with no powerbrake. It stops great, has factory original front disk brakes, power steering, and air conditioning. has bright lights, blinkers. I would rather rely on my 65 than any other car, because of the fact if one thing goes wrong, the whole car wont shut down as in newer cars. Old ones are also nearly indestructable. And I know. I tried to throw the tranny of a 66 f350 I6 4spd on the ground for 2 years solid. And the truck NEVER even acted like i was trying to beat it. All this, and my 65 is my daily driver. Best part about it is, the interior, which is the part of the car you see and deal with the most, is so awesome, all that shiney chrome, its so pretty. Not like new mustangs interior. and as a bonus, no sound deadening, so I get to hear and feel my 289 roar
Posted by 65fastback2+2:
Actually, the 60's cars werent bad. The problem is, improvements make them seem bad. Kinda like when you got that top of the line computer in 1996, and it was SOOOOOOO fast, and now your 2002 computer is slow. Does that make the 1996 computer any more of a piece of junk? Wasnt it great in its time? YES. And there are many things on my 65 fastback I absolutely love and would not get a new one because of em.
#1. Ability and ease to work on. I just pop the hood, crawl in there next to my 289 and begin work. I dont have to worry about messing up hoses and sensors and electrical wires.
#2. computers. I absolutely hate computers in cars because of my 65. We have 4 other cars that are newer and have efi and ecu's. 2 of em ping because the timing computer and mechanism is worn out and wont adjust the timing right. I dont have to worry about that on mine.
The 60's cars were wonderful. Many had plenty of power, were comfortable, and handle really well for old tech. Everyone always says old stangs handle bad, and yet I havent had a problem with mine, and its original stock, and I have 2 VW's to compare it too. It has plenty of getup for stock. prolly lay down a 15.5 in the 1/4. Spins the tires with no powerbrake. It stops great, has factory original front disk brakes, power steering, and air conditioning. has bright lights, blinkers. I would rather rely on my 65 than any other car, because of the fact if one thing goes wrong, the whole car wont shut down as in newer cars. Old ones are also nearly indestructable. And I know. I tried to throw the tranny of a 66 f350 I6 4spd on the ground for 2 years solid. And the truck NEVER even acted like i was trying to beat it. All this, and my 65 is my daily driver. Best part about it is, the interior, which is the part of the car you see and deal with the most, is so awesome, all that shiney chrome, its so pretty. Not like new mustangs interior. and as a bonus, no sound deadening, so I get to hear and feel my 289 roar
_______________________________________________________________
VERY WELL PUT. I couldn't of said it any better myself. The Mustangs of the 1960's and early 70's were definitely better than the ones which were built in the mid and late 70's, 80's and 90's. I think that some people in here don't realize the fact that Ford has downgraded on their materials as well as on the horsepower on vehicles like the Mustang. It wasn't until 1999-2004 that Ford has come back with greater horsepower for the Mustang and for the Cobra. If you can understand this then you can understand what I'm trying to say here. I'm not putting down Mustangs that were built after the early 70's, but they weren't anything compared to the ones which were built before then and which have been built from 1999-2004. Look at the difference in horsepower and performance. The Ford Mustang lacked performance and power from 1973-1998. It's been a proven fact.
Actually, the 60's cars werent bad. The problem is, improvements make them seem bad. Kinda like when you got that top of the line computer in 1996, and it was SOOOOOOO fast, and now your 2002 computer is slow. Does that make the 1996 computer any more of a piece of junk? Wasnt it great in its time? YES. And there are many things on my 65 fastback I absolutely love and would not get a new one because of em.
#1. Ability and ease to work on. I just pop the hood, crawl in there next to my 289 and begin work. I dont have to worry about messing up hoses and sensors and electrical wires.
#2. computers. I absolutely hate computers in cars because of my 65. We have 4 other cars that are newer and have efi and ecu's. 2 of em ping because the timing computer and mechanism is worn out and wont adjust the timing right. I dont have to worry about that on mine.
The 60's cars were wonderful. Many had plenty of power, were comfortable, and handle really well for old tech. Everyone always says old stangs handle bad, and yet I havent had a problem with mine, and its original stock, and I have 2 VW's to compare it too. It has plenty of getup for stock. prolly lay down a 15.5 in the 1/4. Spins the tires with no powerbrake. It stops great, has factory original front disk brakes, power steering, and air conditioning. has bright lights, blinkers. I would rather rely on my 65 than any other car, because of the fact if one thing goes wrong, the whole car wont shut down as in newer cars. Old ones are also nearly indestructable. And I know. I tried to throw the tranny of a 66 f350 I6 4spd on the ground for 2 years solid. And the truck NEVER even acted like i was trying to beat it. All this, and my 65 is my daily driver. Best part about it is, the interior, which is the part of the car you see and deal with the most, is so awesome, all that shiney chrome, its so pretty. Not like new mustangs interior. and as a bonus, no sound deadening, so I get to hear and feel my 289 roar
_______________________________________________________________
VERY WELL PUT. I couldn't of said it any better myself. The Mustangs of the 1960's and early 70's were definitely better than the ones which were built in the mid and late 70's, 80's and 90's. I think that some people in here don't realize the fact that Ford has downgraded on their materials as well as on the horsepower on vehicles like the Mustang. It wasn't until 1999-2004 that Ford has come back with greater horsepower for the Mustang and for the Cobra. If you can understand this then you can understand what I'm trying to say here. I'm not putting down Mustangs that were built after the early 70's, but they weren't anything compared to the ones which were built before then and which have been built from 1999-2004. Look at the difference in horsepower and performance. The Ford Mustang lacked performance and power from 1973-1998. It's been a proven fact.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
I don't feel that my 97 cobra lacks Performance or power. Until 03 the Cobra's were all pretty close in power. Only real difference was the IRS. And the mustang's interior quality has not changed much since 94.
Ron Jeremy said:
One word, INSURANCE... And I think you have a problem that can only be solved at a mental hospital. And to the ones who thinks a 160HP Civic is teh ballz: eat dirt.
I agree with the 99-04 Mustangs comment, they look so damn good esp. the Mach 1 versions
Better than the fox bodies, waaaaay better than the II's and loads better than the rounded 94-98 years. I think they represent what Mustangs should look like today. But I also like the 2005 prototypes.Ron Jeremy said:
End of story! Indeed all models have to grow on you, like FastMustang II says. Personally the Mustang II will never be my choice, but don't forget that these little Ponies made Mustang survive. The 74 Stang was a huge hit during that age. I owe a few Mustangs and I agree that a 69 Mach 1 could be a choice of many muscle car lovers. See my sig.
PJCobra9T7
69 Mach 1 428 SCJ-R Winter Blue
91 GT Convertible Red
97 SVT Cobra Convertible Black
06 SVT Cobra???????????
I'm glad that most of you all agree with me about this issue. The Mustang has COME BACK! The 1999-2004 new body designs and the upgrade in horsepower and torque has brought the Mustang back. And now the newer 2005+ GT's and the 2006 Cobra will even make the Mustang better. When those newer 2005 Mustangs start rolling out of the factory in Detroit they are going to put the older 1974-1998 Mustangs to shame. I'm not trying to put down the older 1974-1998 Mustang cars or their owners, but you have to agree with me that the Mustangs that were built during those years were dogs and they were ugly. They were not as fast and as nice looking as the ones that were built in the previous years thruout the 1960's and early 70's. The building of the 1999-2004 Mustang changed this era of the ugly and underpowered Mustang. And now, the building of the newer 2005 Mustang will even make this car even nicer looking and even faster than the present model.
Some in here might disagree with me. That's okay. I'm not trying to put you or your cars down. I hope that you understand this.
Some in here might disagree with me. That's okay. I'm not trying to put you or your cars down. I hope that you understand this.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
pjcobra9t7 said:
My mustang II is one mustang that never had to grow on me, I Loved it the first time i saw it. I'd never seen any other mustangs like it before and it was the only one I'd seen until I got into mustang II's more.
