what would you like to see for future mustangs

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by Eos, Dec 11, 2003.


  1. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As a daily driver, the Shelby 427 Cobra was a completely impractical street car. So much so they could barely give them away back in 1966 - 67. They were bought primarily by SCCA road racers. IIRC only about 550 of them were made.

    Now here's something else to stick in your hat. You only got a Ford 427 side oiler when you bought the race model of the Shelby 427 Cobra. The street models came with 428 CJ engines. IIRC only about 250 of them were built with the 427's.
     
    #41
  2. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    Some people want to make it a subaru.
     
    #42
  3. Sir Hacksalot

    Sir Hacksalot Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ankeny, IA
    I am not to worried about engine combos, but somethings I would like to see are as follows:

    A stripped down, lightweight, no frills version of the car, much akin to the stripper LX notches that seemed to rule the dragstrips in the late 80's early 90's. I am talking crank windows, manual locks, non-power seats, etc.

    A total weight 3300 lbs with a full tank of gas, and the spare in the trunk.

    Good Brakes. Granted, I missed the SN95 and 'new age' stangs, but the factory brakes on my 93 coupe suck. Jump on them hard once, and I think I would be better off trying to stop myself by using my feet like the Flintstones.

    I don't want fake hoodscoops. If they aren't functional, then get them the f*** out of there. I hated that about the SN95 and New Age mustangs...it was the very thing I railed about ricers...no functioning crap on a car.

    At least 300 HP and 300 ft. lbs of torque.

    A price under $25K for this car.

    Hax
     
    #43
  4. leggatt

    leggatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have to disagree with you on the style. I personally think that the 94 to 98 is one of the best looking mustangs period. The new 99 up style has a relatively fat rear end and way to many fake scoops all over the car. the only thing on the new cars that i think looks better are the headlights.
     
    #44
  5. 65fastback2+2

    65fastback2+2 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    thats cause the original had flat rear ends, its part of heritage just like the 3 taillights and v8's.
     
    #45
  6. Sir Hacksalot

    Sir Hacksalot Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ankeny, IA
    :bs: :bs: :bs:


    Uhhhh, I can't argue about the 1973-1986 stangs, and the 94-98 stangs, but the 87-93 fox bodies were no slouch in the performance arena.

    I am 31 years old, so I never really experienced the thrill of driving a Big Block Mustang, but what the hell did these things run, 12's or 13's in the quarter mile? Granted, a 1969 Mach I with a 428 CJ, shaker hood, and drag pack is a hell of a lot better looking car than any fox body, but I think the little 5.0 based fox bodies could give anything from the 60's/70's a run for its money. I cut my teeth on 5.0 mustangs in highschool and college, and let me tell you something, to this day, there is no better 'bang for the buck' than a 5.0/5 speed fox bodied car.

    You tell me a single car in the almighty muscle car era, from any brand that was capable of running solid 13 second quarter miles on 91 octane fuel, with nothing more than removing the jack, spare, and bumping the timing, that also got 17-22 mpg, had powersteering, AC, cruise control, and was virtually maintenance free, and handled decently. I don't think that there are any.

    I don't mean to rip on the mustang heritage. It's what makes the Mustang great (even the MuSTANK II), the glory days of the Mustang helped make our car what it is, but to say that the 87-93 Stangs are lacking in performance is a gross misstatement.

    Just my two pennies,
    Sir Hacksalot
     
    #46
  7. SadbutTrue

    SadbutTrue Founding Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2002
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Location:
    Granada Hills, California
    I must agree with the above... the Fox Bodies, while not the sweetest styled cars I've ever seen, hauled ass for their time period and are still very capable of mid 6 second sprints to 60 and 14 second quarters... right behind the newest GTs.

    As far as the new mustang:
    No V10, this is an American icon, and its not a Viper, so no V10
    Quality suspension
    A "drag pack" that could be applied to the GT, Mach1/Boss, and Cobra with 3.90 or 4.11 or 4.30 hehe gears, rear seat delete, and other options like they had in 69.
    A shaker scoop on the Mach 1/Boss equivalent
    A really nice exhast note
    The Boss 302 concepts looked awesome, and go ahead and stick a detuned N/A 5.0 cammer in there thats good for 350-360 horsies
    A V6 that can sorta run with the euro and japanese V6s that are everywhere these days
    Nothing with that commerciallized megawhore Carroll Shelby's name attached to it, and for god's sake not another one of those damn gone in 60 seconds eleanors...
     
    #47
  8. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    I can agree with most of what you have said. But then you brought up the silly overabused anti-sheby thing.
     
    #48
  9. Ron Jeremy

    Ron Jeremy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hollywood, California...I live next door to Jenna
    Okay, the 87-93 GT's were not slouches on speed. But they sure didn't look like a Mustang. They were just as ugly as the 94-98 Mustangs. Let's face the truth here. The 1969-1973 Mustangs had fat and wide rear body panels and were not rounded looking or boxy. The 87-98 Mustangs LACKED this look. The 99-2004 Mustang brought back that look. And it also brought back the horsepower and torque. Face the truth and admit that the Mustang from at least 79-98 was not as nice looking and not as powerful as the 99-2004 models. I am not trying to start a war here, but this is fact. Just face it.
     
    #49
  10. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    This is only fact in your mind. I disagree. And I am sure several others would disagree with you. Your supposed superior 99 was only a variation of the 94-98 body style. And let's face the other fact. The 99-04 had the same chassis as the Fox bodies from 1979. So it wasn't really that superior to a fox body. And you are trying to start a war when you insist that your opinion is fact. Just as I would be. If I stated that the 99-04 mustangs wereuglier than the 74-78 mustang II.
     
    #50
  11. Sir Hacksalot

    Sir Hacksalot Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ankeny, IA
    Ron,

    The only styling that is a 'must have' for a mustang is a long hood/short deck lay out, and two doors. As for them 'not looking like a Mustang', they might very well be THE second most recognizable mustang ever made, second only to the 1964.5-1966 Stangs.

    And what the heck do you mean the 909-2004 'brought back the torque? Don't make me friggin laugh. The 4.6's and non supercharged DOHC's are SORELY lacking in torque. They also brought along a curb weight of some 3500-3800 lbs!

    The 'New Age' mustang is a fatass that needs to shed about 400 lbs.

    There are two of them that my friends own, and in a 'stop light to stop light type race' or from a 0-100 mph race, I own their ass every damn time, and my car is as close to stock as you will find for a 1993 Notch, right down to the 3.08 gears.

    Also, try fitting 6'4" of person into a 94-2004 stang...ain't gonna happen.

    The way I see it, everything between 93 and the 2003 Cobra has been a step BACK in terms of performance. The ride, braking, handling, and convenience factors of the newer cars is much better, but I find it funny that when the 3 of us go places, more folks, including RICERS and 'mustang melvins' (you know the guys that simulate the factory overspray, and match every part imagineable to get a 'concours' restored car) are more interestested in my car than they are the other 2.

    Here's yet something else for you to answer Ron. If the cars built in the 60's and 70's are in such better shape, then why is it you hear story after story in the 5.0 forums about Fox bodied stangs that have 150,000 to 200,000 miles that are still running 12.5-14.5 second quarter miles, have no smoking or blow buy, and are standing up to a 100-150 shot of silly gas? I guess that they were just such DOGS (your word, not mine) that they don't know when to quit.

    You have not listed ONE fact. You've run your ****ing yap about your opinion on what was THE best selling Mustang ever made, and quite honestly, you don't know what the **** you're talking about. Now THAT is a fact. Just face it.

    Hax
     
    #51
  12. Sir Hacksalot

    Sir Hacksalot Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ankeny, IA
    The fact is Ron, you DID put a lot of cars down, and a lot of these cars would suck the friggin headlights out of your beloved 1999-2004 Stangs.

    Stick to porno, you seem to know what you're doing there.

    Hax
     
    #52
  13. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not exactly Sir. Here are some real 1/4 mile times for bone stock 1960's Mustangs, along with some recent Mustangs.

    Now I don't want any of you hosers crying "That's bogus dude, I know that a 1969 Boss 302 can run the quarter in 9 flat 'cause my friend's cousin's, uncle's brother did so and all he did was pull the emissions equipment off, put in a 5.36 gear, traction bars, change the heads, block, crank, intake, carburetor, put on a set of Nitto drag radials and give it a 200 shot of gas." Because we're taking bone stock 1960's to bone stock 2003:

    sec / mph
    12.20 / 118 - 1966 Shelby 427 Cobra, Shelby claim for race model with real 427 side oiler 2 x 4 bbl carbs & race tires.
    12.50 / 112 - 2003 Mustang Cobra - typical bone stock, good driver
    12.80 / 109 - 1966 Shelby 427 Cobra - C&D April 1981 street Cobra, probably has a 428 in it
    12.9 / 112 - 2003 Mustang Cobra - C&D April 2003
    13.20 / 110 - 2000 Mustang Cobra R, C&D April 2000
    13.50 / 105 - 2001 Mustang Cobra, C&D July 2001
    13.50 / 106 - 2003 Mustang Mach 1 - typical bone stock
    13.74 / 104 - 1971 Boss 351, Car Craft March 1971 - not stock had long tube headers added
    13.80 / 104 - 1971 Boss 351 - unknown source Hot Rod??
    13.90 / 103 - 1969 Mustang Mach 1 with 428 Cobra Jet
    14.00 / 102 - 1966 Shelby Mustang GT-350 - competition version with race tires
    14.09 / 103 - 1969 Boss 429 - These were DOGS's bone stock
    14.10 / 101 - 1999 Mustang Cobra C&D April 1999 - has IRS
    14.10 / 101 - 1971 Boss 351, Car & Driver - Bone Stock Car
    14.2 / 100 - 1994 Mustang GT with SVO GT-40 heads, intake & 3.55 rear end, C&D April 1995
    14.22 / 98 - 2002 Mustang GT 5 spd. 5.0 Magazine Bone stock test Dec 2002
    14.57 / 98 - 1969 Mustang Boss 302 - Ford Motor Claimed #'s
    14.60 / 97 - 1970 Boss 302 Hot Rod Jan 1970 - rev limited disconnected
    14.60 / 96 - 1994 Mustang Cobra Convertible, C&D Aug 1994
    14.70 / 96 - 1971 Boss 351, Sports Car Graphic
    14.93 / 94 - 1970 Boss 302 Car & Driver Feb 1970
    14.85 / 96 - 1969 Boss 302, Motor Trend Sept 1969
    15.1 / 94 - 1966 Shelby Mustang GT-350, C&D April 1981, Street version of GT 350
    15.4 /90 - 1983 Mustang GT, C&D June 1983
    15.5 / 90 - 1984 SVO Mustang, C&D Oct 1983 - turbo 4 cyl
    16.2 / 86 - 1982 Mustang GT, C&D Aug. 1982
    17.0 / 85 - 1980 Mustang V8 - Ford Claim
     
    #53
  14. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    Your only talking about the gt right? Because my 97 has owned every fox it has seriously competed against. I have a hard time believing that an increase in performance from year to year is a step back. Sure they may weigh more. But they generally have more hp.
     
    #54
  15. Sir Hacksalot

    Sir Hacksalot Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ankeny, IA
    yes, I should have clarified that...I still think that the non supercharged Cobra's lack torque, but with the right driving technique, they are a beast.

    Hax
     
    #55
  16. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    Pardon me for not agreeing with everything you'vev written. while I am sure they are indeed facts you found. I hae a hard time believing that the 99 cobra is .6 slower than an 01. Nuless that was the prefix model. Since they were both rated the same and had the same equipement.
     
    #56
  17. Sir Hacksalot

    Sir Hacksalot Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ankeny, IA
    I think you pretty much just made my point for me.

    How many magazines took a stock 1987-1993 Notch back. Yanked the front swaybar, bumped the timing to 14*, removed the jack and spare, and powershifted the beejeezus out of one to the tune of 13.99@98-100 mph? It became so common that no one even writes about it any more.

    You know, I just realized that my 4200 lb Marauder is faster than most of those cars in the 1/4 mile.

    As for the shelby cobras...the only similarity that those little two seaters have to Mustangs is that they have a Ford driveline.

    Hax
     
    #57
  18. Ron Jeremy

    Ron Jeremy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hollywood, California...I live next door to Jenna
    Hey SirHacksalot,

    Like I said, I am not trying to start a war in here just because I said that I don't like the 79-98 Mustangs. I had the opportunity to buy a Mustang GT 5 times in the last 22 years BUT I didn't. I could of bought a 1981, 1985, 1989, 1992, and 1997 Mustang GT all brand new. And the reason that I didn't buy any Mustang GT during all those years is because I didn't like the way the Mustang looked, let alone the bad performance of the car. I thought that the GT only had something like 225HP-230HP back then. Maybe it was a few pounds lighter, but it didn't have enough horsepower like the 1999-2004 GT's do. And they also looked bad and didn't look like a Mustang. I didn't want to own a boxy looking Mustang GT that looked like a Plymouth Reliant K car. That's what the Mustang looked like back then from 79-93. They were ugly looking. And in 94 when the newer body style came out they still didn't look nice. They looked like a Mitsubishi Eclipse. They were designed and made too rounded. I personally don't like rounded looking cars that resemble an oriental gookmobile.

    On the other hand, when the 1999 body style came out I saw MANY styling que's which resembled the same styling that the Mustang had only during the 60's and early 70's (1964-1973). The car was not too rounded or too boxy like its predesessor (1979-1998 Mustang). And it had 260HP. How many HP did the 79-98 Mustang GT's have? NOT 260HP that's for sure. So these are all the LOGICAL reasons why I don't like the older 79-98 Mustangs. If you like them then it's fine. Some people do like boxy and rounded cars. I don't. I'm just trying to explain to you WHY I think that the current body style Mustang GT (1999-2004) is nicer than the older Body styles (1979-1998). I am not trying to start a heated debate in here about whether my GT is better than yours. I am just trying to show you the BIG differences in styling and horsepower between the earlier (1979-1998) Mustang GT's from the current 1999-2004 Mustang GT. And in my honest opinion, I really beleive that the 1999-2004 Mustang GT's are way better than the older GT's (1974-1998 older Mustangs). You can beleive whatever you like. It's fine with me. I just wanted to explain myself and the logic behind everything that I said in here earlier which caused a misunderstanding towards some people in here. And there's no reason for you to get so emotional about this subject. We are all just having a nice calm discussion in here about this topic. It shouldn't get out of hand just because of what I said. Thanks.

    And now I got go. I'm late for my porno movie shoot. :D
    Tonite I got a full load to shoot. :rlaugh:
     
    #58
  19. SVTdriver

    SVTdriver Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle Wa
    So then you'll like the new mustang since it resembles the 60's stangs even more than your current GT.
     
    #59
  20. Ron Jeremy

    Ron Jeremy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hollywood, California...I live next door to Jenna
    THAT I WILL..........THAT I WILL.
    There's nothing better than seeing the even newer 2005+ Mustang GT look even nicer than the ones which I currently own and drive. I'm hoping to buy a Cobra in 2007/2008. I'm also hoping that it closely resembles the 67-68 Shelby Cobra KR500 and the 1967-1970 Shelby Cobra 350GT. If it looks anything like the Shelby Cobras of 1965-1970 or like the Mustang GT's of 1964-1973 then I want to buy one. But if they are going to look boxy like the Plymouth K cars of the late 70's and early 80's or rounded like the Mitsubishi Eclipse I will not buy one. It's simple as that. A Mustang GT should look like a Mustang GT, not like a Plymouth Reliant K car or like a Mitsubishi Eclipse. I think that many in here will agree with me about this.
     
    #60

Share This Page