what would you like to see for future mustangs

[63_Fairlane]

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!

The 1989 to 1993 Fox bodies were faster than Shelby GT350's and Boss 302's!!!! Converting the 1960s horspower to modern SAE numbers or vice versa is fairly easy. And the numbers are fairly accurate when compared to dyno's

30% losses due to engine accessories
15% losses due to the drive line

289 HI PO = 271 HP gross
289 HI PO = 190 HP Net at the crank
289 HI PO = 160HP Net at the wheels

Doing the oposite for a fuel injected 5.0 (302)
302 HO = 225 HP Net at the Crank
302 HO = 190 HP Net at the Wheels
302 HO = 320 HP Gross

 

[351CJ]

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.

I specifically included many different 1/4 mile times because there can be significant variation from 1 run to the next. It depends upon the track the car is tested at, the weather, time of day, humidity, temperature, height above sea level and MOST importantly the driver.

If you look at the 14.2 time for the 02 GT, this was in 5.0 mag. They brought in a good 1/4 mile driver to run the car, but not someone who was familiar with Mustang GT's. They made 5 passes. The first was 14.8, the 5th was the best at 14.218 as the driver learned the car. Go over the 4.6 tech thread here or on other places like Corral and see the #'s people post and see what sort of variation they get on any given day.

C&D times are often bashed here on Stang Net because C&D drives the car more conservatively, like 98% of drivers will AND they correct their numbers to "standard" conditions, sea level, 70 degrees, and a specific humitity and barometric pressure. Hence their #'s are uaually a bit conservative.

In researching the reviews and 1/4 mile times a re-occuring theme in the magazines (whether it's 1966 or 2003) is that often the car rag brings into question whether the car they are testing is a true representation of what comes off the end of the production line or if they have been given a ringer that was tweaked by the manufacturer. This question came up very often with both the Boss 302 & Boss 351 tests and somewhat with the Cobra tests.

Finally, as yo pointed out '99 was the year of the missing Cobra HP fiasco, so there is no telling whether the specific car tested was missing HP or was an early factory loaner that had full HP. For 2001 the Cobras were delivered with all the claimed HP and then some.

 

[351CJ]

Converting the 1960s horspower to modern SAE numbers or vice versa is fairly easy. And the numbers are fairly accurate when compared to dyno's

30% losses due to engine accessories
15% losses due to the drive line

289 HI PO = 271 HP gross
289 HI PO = 190 HP Net at the crank
289 HI PO = 160HP Net at the wheels

Doing the oposite for a fuel injected 5.0 (302)
302 HO = 225 HP Net at the Crank
302 HO = 190 HP Net at the Wheels
302 HO = 320 HP Gross

This is NOT true. 30% losses is just an off the cuff #.

Gross #'s were obtained with an engine on a dyno with as you pointed out, no accesories and w/o a normal exhaust system.

A fan, an alternator a PS pump all have fixed losses not a %. That is lets say
the alternator has a 5 HP loss, it will still be 5 HP whether is is on a 100 HP car or a 300 HP car. So in the 100 HP car it is a 5% loss while on a 300 HP car it is only a 1.7% loss. Same with power steering, A/C, fan.

The exhuast system also has a big effect. On a 150 HP family sedan that has a single exhuast system it could have a 30 HP loss (17% loss). However on a Boss 302 with dual exhuast and bigger pipes it could only have a 15 HP loss again a much lower percentage @ 5%.

A good example of this is to look at the change in HP ratings from 1971, last year of gross to 1972 first year of net (& yes I realize that part of the change is due to lower compression ratios in 1972 so I have chosen examples with nearly the same CR)

351C 2V 1971 = 240 HP, 1972 = 177 HP change = -26%
351CJ 4V 1971 = 280 HP, 1972 = 266 HP change = -5%

For the 351 4V I have specifically chosen the Cobra Jet version that appered in late 1971 that has the same 9.0:1 compression ratio used in 1972 and was virtually the same engine as used in 1972. Also note that the 351 4V in 1972 had HP ratings of 248, 262, or 266 HP depending which car it was installed on. The only differances are the exhaust system & air cleaner / intake.

 

[Sir Hacksalot]

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.

What in the hell are you used to driving? The 87-93 Mustang GT and LX 5.0 was, and still is the ultimate bang for the buck performance car in the market.

HP ratings are generally a crock of crap. Ever heard of the Buick Grand National? Rated at a paltry 245 HP...these things were sucking the headlights out of Corvettes and everything else on the road from 1985-1987, and are still doing it today. I have spanked some cars that have more 'rated' hp than me, such as a 240 HP Honda S2000, a 199something LT1 Camaro that is somewhere in the 275-300HP range, and also waxed a couple of 260HP 2002 GT's. I have also had my ass handed to me by a Grand National, and an LT1 Vette, so go figure.

Ron, you and I will obviously not agree on what constitutes a good looking mustang, as quite honestly, I think the 99-2004 stangs look like ass, and a clean notch with a set of Welds is just a pure business thing of beauty, but in terms of performance, I will take a 5.0/5 speed 87-93 fox body any day of the week in any kind of race, be it drag racing, autocross, top end, you name it. The 99-2004 GT's do have some performance, there is no denying that, but the way I see it, they are just now starting to MATCH the performance of the 5.0 when it was in its heyday.

If I were to take my 93 notch, and throw on some bolt ons, gears, slicks, and a little luck, I am looking at a high 12 second/low 13 second car. If I take a 2004 GT and throw on some bolt ons, slicks, gears, and a little luck, I am looking at at high 12 second car/low 13 second car. The performance was there. To say they were slow or lacking is just plain ignorant of the facts.

I hope you glazed the donut well at your shoot!

Hax

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I still find it hard for me to beleive that a late 80's and early 90's notchback Mustang is more powerful than a 99-2004 Mustang GT. I agree about one thing though. If you dress up the 87-93 Mustang notchback with bolt-ons you will definitely get more horsepower. But I cannot beleive that a stock notchback will beat a stock 99-2004 GT. No way.

 

[Sir Hacksalot]

I still find it hard for me to beleive that a late 80's and early 90's notchback Mustang is more powerful than a 99-2004 Mustang GT. I agree about one thing though. If you dress up the 87-93 Mustang notchback with bolt-ons you will definitely get more horsepower. But I cannot beleive that a stock notchback will beat a stock 99-2004 GT. No way.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. I will say this though, I think it was mainly because neither guy knows how to launch their car worth a crap, and it's understandable. The car makes no low end torque, and there is a fine line between getting the car moving and blowing the tires at the launch. It's much the same with a 5.0, but they seem to be much more forgiving because the car makes a ton of torque off the line, and the power 'under the curve' is flat out outstanding.

A 1999 and newer Mustang WILL dyno more power than my little car. I put about as much concern in a dyno number as I do keeping track of the tooth fairy. There are plenty of '1000 HP Supra's' that can't run faster than 12.5 in the quarter. I don't mean to be ripping on the 1999 and newer stangs, there are several of those guys here on stangnet that would whip my ass, but to say that the 87-93 5.0 is 'underpowered' is just ludicrous, unless you're like me when the only right amout of power/torque is MORE.

Hax

 

[MatthewP]

I might as well weigh in with a few comments regarding the above:

#1: My personal opinion is that the '71-'73 Mustangs are pretty ugly.
#2: I'm pretty sure that MM&FF ran a stock '01 GT 13.70 and that they got 13.40 or so from a nearly stock '97 Cobra. If anyone really cares I can look up the articles.
#3: Car and Driver consistently runs poor numbers in Fords and consistently rips Fords. As far as I am concerned they are one of the most biased anti-Ford publications on earth.
#4: High 13's at sea level are common in essentially stock '87-'93 5.0 LX Mustangs. These cars are quicker than almost any '60's Mustang.
#5: Late model Mustangs are not only quicker than '60's Mustangs but they are better in every single way with the possible exception of styling. I sold my '67 Fastback for a '97 Cobra in 1997 because the Cobra was so much better.
#6: My '02 GT Convertible with blizzaks and traction control is the best winter beater I have ever owned. I've never driven any of the other Mustangs I have owned in the winter because they sucked, but this one is awesome. In my opinion, this is a major milestone for Mustangs in northern climates.

What am I hoping for in the '05? Well, some of this is a pie in the sky wish list, but why not huh?

- OnStar. Seriously, this system is the only reason I would consider buying a GM and a glaring omission in the Ford option list.
- Reliable/Quality. After so many new vehicle roll out problems lately, I worry about owning a year 1 Ford, though I am highly inclined to run out and buy an '05 as soon as they are available.
- Over 300 HP in the GT, 500 HP in the Cobra.
- User flashable powertrain control module.
- Good headrests on all models. Even my '02 has terrible head rests which are a whiplash problem waiting to happen for anyone of above average height.
- "stripper" option, however it could keep the power windows and locks. They're not that much heavier, and Ford are never going back to crank windows.
- 6 speed in the GT.
- 4:10 gear option
- Torsen differential
- GT Price: Under $30000 Cdn.

-Matthew

 

[78Mach1]

Ron,

...

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.

and in another
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.

Hax

ACTUALLY the best selling Mustang made was The 66 1 have the list of top 10 sales(based on totals by model year) up until 1993- anyone have the sales totals from 93 +??? might be interesting

1 1966: 547,511
2 1965: 499,243
3 1967: 442,686
4 1979: 302,309
5 1968: 299,061
6 1974: 296,041
7 1969: 293,338
8 1980: 246,008
9 1975: 199,199
10 1978: 179,039

In 5 years the II sold 1,014,474 cars not bad for a car that NO ONE liked.

And as for you not wanting to rank on the mustang heritage, what do you think your staement did! It's called being a hipocrite. Like some one else said, the change in HP ratings came in 72- unless you are trying to uniformed or ignorant and basing assumptions on the 74 model year that only had the 4 (yes a whopping 88 hp)and 6(again A whopping 106hp) cylinders availabe, the II's were not any more underpowered than the early year 289/302's in 75 the 302 was finally back in the Mustang rated at 140hp net- not too far off the classics numbers after they are ajusted to net

Frankly our II's get more respect from Gm and Import owners than we do from fellow Stangers. You may not like the cars, and I will respect your opinion as such, but at least give those of us who own, and love them the repect that WE deserve. It's like beating a dead @uck#$g horse for Christs sake.

At least we had a lot more Style than the foxes, and a lot of it was taken from the originals. Add to that that we we the first Top cars(77 and 78), AND we also had Sunroofs all along, AND THE FIRST to use 5.0 BADGING to boot(the King)!

Ok End rant begin

 

[Sir Hacksalot]

The difference between my opinion and Ron Jeremy's was that I never stated it as a FACT. I merely stated my own opinion.

I don't care for the mustangs from 1971-1984, and from 1994 to present...that's my personal taste in cars. I like the 1964.5-1970 and 1987-93, as well as the upcoming 2005 model.

If the 1974-78 stangs float your boat...good for you, I don't care for them, but I am not hypocritical enough to state things as FACT when it's nothing more than my opinion.

Hax

 

[351CJ]

#1: My personal opinion is that the '71-'73 Mustangs are pretty ugly.

#2: I'm pretty sure that MM&FF ran a stock '01 GT 13.70 and that they got 13.40 or so from a nearly stock '97 Cobra. If anyone really cares I can look up the articles.

#3: Car and Driver consistently runs poor numbers in Fords and consistently rips Fords. As far as I am concerned they are one of the most biased anti-Ford publications on earth.

#5: Late model Mustangs are not only quicker than '60's Mustangs but they are better in every single way with the possible exception of styling. I sold my '67 Fastback for a '97 Cobra in 1997 because the Cobra was so much better.

-Matthew

#1. I agree, the 71 - 73's are ugly and oversized. However someone I know had a 71 convertable with a 429 and with the top down it actually looked pretty good.

#2. Read the 5.0 article I referenced on the 2002 GT times (Dec 2002) it seems a lot more realistic to me.

#3. I included the C&D times because as slow as they are, they show how fast the modern Mustangs are compared to the 1960's stangs.

#5. This is the original point I was trying to make FastmustangII was wishing to be alive in the 1960's to experience the Muscle Car era. I was trying to point out that in reality most people are looking back to the 60's with rose colored glasses. It wasn't as wonderful as most people make out, including the cars.

About a year ago I got rid of my last old car, a 1972 Gran Torino Sport with a 351CJ & 4 speed. Yes it was big and heavy, however with coil springs all around and some more modern design elements it was a far better car for overall driving than those 1960's Mustangs, Fairlaines and Torinos, all of which are really just upgraded 1960's Falcons underneath with their strut front suspension and horribly obsolete rear leaf springs.

I replaced my last Torino ( I had several ) with a 2001 GT, 5 speed coupe. The 2001 GT is a far better car in virtually every aspect and any 1960's or 1970's car that I have owned. The only real complaint that I have with my GT is that the seats are marginal and the headrestes suck. But if I want to spend the $$ that's easily fixed with Mach 1 or Cobra seats.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

351CJ,

I do agree with you about some things which you are saying here. Look, the fact is that all people who like the Mustang have their own preferences as to which year and model Mustang is their favorite one. I can understand that. The only thing which gets me worked up here is when Ford downsized the horsepower and screwed up the design of the Mustang vehicles to satisfy the socialists at the EPA. The Mustang was a horror show when Ford built a smaller engine and tried to make the car lighter during the energy crisis of the mid 70's and thruout the 80's. For someone here who remembers the nice styling and powerful engines that Mustangs had back in the 60's and early 70's, that was all gone for the Mustang by the mid 70's. I guess Ford was experimenting with all sorts of different engines and body designs to try to get the Mustang right. It's taken Ford over 27 years (since 1972) before they got the Mustang back on track. What I am saying here is that the current 99-04 Mustang body styling and engine performance is close to if not compatible to what it was back in the days of sex, drugs and rock and roll in the 60's and early 70's. I see lots of styling que's that are in the current body design and engine which parallel the 1960's and early 70's Mustangs. I think that it is a good thing. Ford is coming out with the newer 2005+ body design which blows even our current 1999-2004 GT's away. Ford has come a long way and I think that they have succeeded in FINALLY building the Mustang the way it should look and perform. If Ford continues to build nice looking Mustang cars and if they continue to concentrate on making the Mustang fast like they are doing now, I will want to buy another Mustang vehicle. If they don't do this and if Ford builds ugly and underpowered Mustangs, then I will not buy one just like I didn't buy one back in 1981, 1985, 1989, 1991 and 1997.

Like I said before, Ford has come a looooooooooooooong way.
I'm hoping that ford will keep up the good work with the 2005+ Mustang GT and with the 2006+ Cobra. Like I said before, if Ford brings back the 1960's and early 70's designs and performance for the Mustang and Cobra, they will have many happy Mustang owners.

 

[jcp123]

'71-'73 are big and heavy (actually about the same weight as a new GT), but i like that anyway. i happen to think they look mean, and they can back it up with a 351CJ. the II's are nice cars, as well. the box's are a disgrace to mustang styling, but i agree offer some great bang-for-the-buck performance. the '94-'95's are the 'favorites' of mine as far as late models go, because they have the best styling i've seen on a late model, and still have the 5.0. beyond that, i'm not really a fan of the mustang, i dont really like late-model stuff that much.
but all in all, i like mustangs. i'd even drive a new one if i had one, just because i like being in the brotherhood of mustangs

 

[78Mach1]

The difference between my opinion and Ron Jeremy's was that I never stated it as a FACT. I merely stated my own opinion.

I don't care for the mustangs from 1971-1984, and from 1994 to present...that's my personal taste in cars. I like the 1964.5-1970 and 1987-93, as well as the upcoming 2005 model.

If the 1974-78 stangs float your boat...good for you, I don't care for them, but I am not hypocritical enough to state things as FACT when it's nothing more than my opinion.

Hax

See That is how to post an opinion- What i was calling hypocritical was the FACT that you said

I don't mean to rip on the mustang heritage. It's what makes the Mustang great (even the MuSTANK II),

Face it. The II is a part of that heritage that you don't want to rip on, but IGNORANT lines like that, do just what you claim you don't want to do! Be happy with your fox- I know lots of people that don't like them( we could get into some names for them also, but I won't stoop to that level becasue even though I don't like any of the fox body styling they still carry the name and at least deserve a little respect for that)but I won't argue that they were affordable performance at the time.

Now back on topic I really want to see the t tops back in the Stangs
6 speed in the V-8 cars, NOT just the Cobra's or SE's
HID lighting
More options, less option Group packages. I know the packages are supposed to offer better cost savings, but there are some things in one "package", some in another, but you can't mix and match, even though sometimes the only difference is a minor swap. or even a radio delete option- like that would be real hard to do

 

[SadbutTrue]

Just clearin gup some facts here...

351C:

First, that table you provided is sort of accurate, if you take into account magazine drivers can't drive and its harder to drive older cars, thus giving the newer ones a slight edge. One major thing you didn't look at was how tires impacted things though... a Boss 429 is in the 12s with a set of drag radials (so I heard by a Boss 9 owner on the classic boards months ago, anyway).

And you are right about the 289 horsepower conversion to net. A mildly modified C code (200 hp gross) have laid down around 150 in several dynoes on the classic forums (in net power at the wheels). A Hipo will do considerably more. A rough estimate from the change from gross to net is -15%.

And peeps, while you can have your opinions about the II and the Fox, respect what they were good at.. the II sold like no other and the 87 Fox gave the Mustang the streets (until the LT1 FBodies came out) and gave the Mustang the respect it had lacked for quite a while.

 

[SadbutTrue]

And I'll repeat it, I really, really hope Shelby dies before they throw his name on a high end mustang instead of the name Mach 1 or Boss. While I love his old Mustangs and Cobras, he hasn't done a damn thing since the 60s that was worth the time it took to read about in motor trend. The entire current eleanor pheonomena makes me sick.

 

[Sir Hacksalot]

And peeps, while you can have your opinions about the II and the Fox, respect what they were good at.. the II sold like no other and the 87 Fox gave the Mustang the streets (until the LT1 FBodies came out) and gave the Mustang the respect it had lacked for quite a while.

Here here! Well said, and I apologize to the Mustang II brethren out there.

A mustang is a mustang, and it's still a beautiful thing!

Hax

 

[SadbutTrue]

But I cannot beleive that a stock notchback will beat a stock 99-2004 GT. No way.

You are a bit ignorant. Yes, the 99-2004 GTs have 260 and the 87+ foxes have 225 or thereabouts. That does not mean that the newer GTs will win a race. The new GTs weigh between 3500-3800 lbs, depending on who you talk to. 5.0 LXs weigh under 3000... giving it an extreme edge in both straight line and handling constests. They are very well matched in stock trim and the 5.0 will start beating the GT when the modding begins.

And horsepower ratings are absolute crap. Big hp cars are underrated all the time (Fbodies, Viper are good examples, as are older big block classics), usually for advertising, insurance or government reasons.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I was unaware that the 87-92 Mustangs were lighter than the current 99-04 Mustang GT's. I always thought that they were both very close in weight. Anyways, I would like to know HOW the 87-92 Mustangs were able to be much lighter than the current 99-04 Mustangs? Were they lighter because they were slightly smaller size cars or because they were built with different materials? I would like to find out the answer to this. Thanks.

 

[tylers65]

Weight is usually a by-product of extra electrical systems and sound deadening. It could also come from materials used in the manufacturing of the drive train and suspension.

If there are more computer operated systems in the car, it will weigh more because of all of the extra wire needed in order to do so.

In order to reduce the DB level in a car from inherint road and wind noise, the car must be insulated against them. This is done several different ways. One way to reduce wind noise is to install thicker (heavier) glass in all locations. The other way is to increase the amount of material sprayed on the inside of the sheet metal to make it thicker (heavier) the other way is to place dense foam in between sheet metal and interior pieces to fill on the hollow void between them.

These all add up very fast.

 

[351CJ]

Just clearin gup some facts here...

351C:

One major thing you didn't look at was how tires impacted things though... a Boss 429 is in the 12s with a set of drag radials (so I heard by a Boss 9 owner on the classic boards months ago, anyway).

And what sort of times would a 2003 Mach 1 or 2003 Mustang Cobra turn with a set of drag radials on them?

Sound's like you're mostly in agreement, but you're ignoring a very important point I've tried to make repeatedly.

The original premese of this thread was that FastMustangII wished to be alive in the 1960's for the muscle car era. In 1969 there were not any drag radials. The tires in the 1960's totally sucked. You can't take a 1960's car and start adding 2003 technology on it to say how wonderful 1960's muscle cars were. I don't think anyone will try to argue that modern radial tires, elecronic ignition and many other things are wonderful, but they did NOT exist in the 1960's. I'm also sure that and Boss 429 that ran 12 seconds had some other tweaks on it too.

Also, the Boss 429 was a very limited production engine. Ford didn't even want to sell them to us regular people. They were forced to sell 500 / year in a production car so NASCAR would let them race the engine. Today Ford would be overjoyed if any of us went out and bought a Mustang Cobra.