what would you like to see for future mustangs

#81
Sure compared to mmodern cars the 60's had problems. But many people would point out the styling was better. Cars had individual looks. For instancec the nova didn't look like a chevlle or a camaro. Nowadays cars are resembling each other too much. Look at all the different seddans being made today. They are not as identifiably as the 60's. In years will you be saying that the 2005 sucked in handing and hp?
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#82
SVTdriver,

I agree with you 100%. All the $hitbox cars which are built today ALL resemble each other. The cars which were built all during the 60's and early 70's had MUCH BETTER styling to them than most of the cars which are all built today. Most of today's cars are too rounded looking and are too bland looking. All manufacturer's car look alike. That's what I have been trying to explain to everyone in here all thruout this thread. But I guess that some people are braindead or just plain stupid. They don't realize and see this problem. The styling was 1,000 times better during the 60's and early 70's. And not only that, but Ford wasn't afraid to add more horsepower to their engines back then. There were no restrictions with the EPA and with the environmentalists back then and Ford was able to build more powerful engines. But that changed with all the socialists and all the idiots at the EPA during the mid 70's and afterwards. The EPA and the communist environmentalists nowadays dictate to the auto manufacturers how to build a car. That's wrong.The EPA and the environmentalists have ruined the American way of life and the prosperity of American auto manufacturing businesses in this country. They are nothing but a large thorn in our economy. I hope that the auto manufacturing companies STOP listening to the communist EPA and to the environmentalists who are also communists. These two groups of people have been the true traitors to the United States for the past 30 years.
 
#83
We agree on some parts. But I disagree with you on th 94-98 mustang. Ihappen to like my 97 better than any of the current body style. Though I would like an 03 Cobra motor in my 97. Unfortunately only the individual citizen can stop the people creating these laws. And very few seem to want to. I personally don't care what powers a car in the future. As long as they go fast. And the future should hold that. Composite technology is just getting started really. That's why it is so expensive. And a lighter car will definately be faster.
 
#84
SVTDriver,

I 100% agree with you about the lighter materials. If Ford can build the Mustang with lighter composite materials they solve the problem with the weight of the car. What bothers me is if the materials would be good quality and not the type that would break, crack or fall of the car with age. Ford would have to make sure that the lighter composite materials that they use on the Mustang is decent. I would hate to see the Mustang fall apart because of its bad quality composite body materials.
 
#88
RJC_Pony99 said:
It may have been said already, but I REALLY WANT the IRS to be an option on the GT. I can't afford the Cobra and I am not big on Drag racing. What I really want is a better handling daily driver.

Are you listening FORD??????
Click to expand...


I'm with you. I live in the great white north with our wavy, cracked and bumpy frost heaved roads. It doesn't matter how much better the unibody is or the live axle suspension is, it won't be as good as IRS on our less than perfect roads.

I really don't need more than 300 HP. I want a GT with IRS! If you're listening, Ford, I won't be buying a new Mustang until I see how this IRS stuff shakes out. I can wait..........
 
#89
351CJ, I'm with you. I live in Northern California in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and roads are less then perfect around here. They also have corners.

Much as I love the new Mustang. I won't buy one until I can get IRS. And 300hp is more than enough for the driving I do.
 
#90
78Mach1 said:
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 :rolleyes: 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 :shrug:

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)!
65_and_74.jpg

Ok End rant begin :bang: :bang: :bang:
Click to expand...


:D Long live the original 5.0!
 

Attachments

  • 65_and_74.jpg
    65_and_74.jpg
    12.9 KB · Views: 150
#91
351CJ said:
#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. :nice: 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.
Click to expand...

I still admire the 60's for all of the breakthroughs in music *rock* and all the rights movements and protests going on back then. It must have been exciting times. I would have been a flower child :D
 
#92
78Mach1 said:
anyone have the sales totals from 93 +??? might be interesting
Click to expand...

Here are some sales #'s for recent years. You can't compare today's sale #'s to the 60's as it is a different world. Import sales were almost insignificant in the 60's and the only people who bought trucks back then actually used them as trucks.

Sales #'s by calander year, for the US only, you didn't say what your #'s were. You can add about 10% for Canadian sales to the #'s below.

2003: 138,500 estimated sales were 128,101 through Nov 30
2002: 138,356
2001: 169,198
2000: 173,676
1999: 166,916
1998: 147,587
1997: 119,795
1996: 127,464
Sorry, but I couldn't find 1994 & 1995 #'s.

Production #'s by Model Year:
2003: ??
2002: 142,404
2001: 155,563
2000: 215,693
1999: 133,907 - Short production year, prod. didn't start until Dec 98 or Jan 99
1998: 170,642 - This was a long production year becasue the 1999 was late.
1997: 100,254
1996: 126,483
1995: 165,037
1994: 123,598

As you can see the 1999 - 2003 Mustangs have done better than the 1994 - 1998 model, with the 2000 model year slipping into #9 on your top 10 list.

I can remember back to 1998 when all the nay-sayers were whining about the SN95 Mustang and how ugly it was and how horrible the Mod motor was, and how the Mustang was dead. If Ford can manufacture enough of them, I'll bet they will sell 200,000+ Mustangs in 2005.

These #'s are not perfect, I checked a couple of sources and found a good 5% variation between them. It may be that one set of #'s included export models the other was US only.
 
#94
fastmustangII said:
I would have been a flower child :D
Click to expand...

Yea, but the day you showed up with your 1967 Mustang GT, 390 4 BBL, with Hurst T-handle shifter, Craiger SS wheels, traction bars and glass packs, you would have been kicked right out of your commune. :rlaugh:

Flower children were the original PC police, and were required to drive a VW beetle or Microbus. :p
 
#95
351CJ said:
Here are some sales #'s for recent years. You can't compare today's sale #'s to the 60's as it is a different world. Import sales were almost insignificant in the 60's and the only people who bought trucks back then actually used them as trucks.

Sales #'s by calander year, for the US only, you didn't say what your #'s were. You can add about 10% for Canadian sales to the #'s below.

2003: 138,500 estimated sales were 128,101 through Nov 30
2002: 138,356
2001: 169,198
2000: 173,676
1999: 166,916
1998: 147,587
1997: 119,795
1996: 127,464
Sorry, but I couldn't find 1994 & 1995 #'s.

Production #'s by Model Year:
2003: ??
2002: 142,404
2001: 155,563
2000: 215,693
1999: 133,907 - Short production year, prod. didn't start until Dec 98 or Jan 99
1998: 170,642 - This was a long production year becasue the 1999 was late.
1997: 100,254
1996: 126,483
1995: 165,037
1994: 123,598

As you can see the 1999 - 2003 Mustangs have done better than the 1994 - 1998 model, with the 2000 model year slipping into #9 on your top 10 list.

I can remember back to 1998 when all the nay-sayers were whining about the SN95 Mustang and how ugly it was and how horrible the Mod motor was, and how the Mustang was dead. If Ford can manufacture enough of them, I'll bet they will sell 200,000+ Mustangs in 2005.

These #'s are not perfect, I checked a couple of sources and found a good 5% variation between them. It may be that one set of #'s included export models the other was US only.
Click to expand...
That list was the top 10 selling models based on totals by model year. production totals I only have for the II's:

sales totals/production of II's
 
#98
I would like to see near future versions have these (without $$ in mind):

- GTS versions available (i.e. almost like a drag pack that is mentioned) like in 95
- at least 3.27 gears stock
- Standard short throw shifter (unless new ones will have one??)
- Cobra equipped with turbo system instead of roots blower
- GT standard with 3 valve 5.4 (thus at least standard ~350fwhp)
- IRS/Live axle option in GT and Cobra
- HID headlights standard in GT and Cobra (eg. focus is moving to this)
- Cobra is 2 seater
- better stock internals on GT to handle boost better as 4.6 block is descent


Thats off the top of my head
 
#100
scubastang said:
I would like to see near future versions have these (without $$ in mind):

- GTS versions available (i.e. almost like a drag pack that is mentioned) like in 95
- at least 3.27 gears stock
- Standard short throw shifter (unless new ones will have one??)
- Cobra equipped with turbo system instead of roots blower
- GT standard with 3 valve 5.4 (thus at least standard ~350fwhp)
- IRS/Live axle option in GT and Cobra
- HID headlights standard in GT and Cobra (eg. focus is moving to this)
- Cobra is 2 seater
- better stock internals on GT to handle boost better as 4.6 block is descent


Thats off the top of my head
Click to expand...

Stock HID lighting would be nice. Hell I'd even take it as an option!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Caught the Mustang Fever
Replies
3
Views
597
The Welcome Wagon
Davedacarpainter
Davedacarpainter
J
351w swap in 2004 questions (set up like a 95 Cobra)
Replies
4
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
jonathansw1601
J
Colorado66
Progress Thread 2014 V6 'chelle-b Ii'
Replies
30
Views
6K
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Noobz347
Noobz347
T
First Post And Help With First Mustang
Replies
2
Views
720
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
thr61
T
FoxMustangLvr
Excellent Hagerty Article About The "kings Of The Street"
Replies
11
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
NIKwoaC
NIKwoaC
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu