Search results

No. It's some kind of fuel dump valve or something - I saw a closer detailed pic of it in another post. It's not something that is going on the production models.

I've seen the tag in another photo as well, tho' I can't remember where.

I actually knew a guy who didn't exactly know how to change his oil. He figured out how to drain the oil, but when he refilled it, he poured all five quarts of oil down a funnel into his dipstick tube!! We gave him grief over that for years!

Yeah, I saw that - interesting!

You have to have full coverage if you finance the car - and I have to. There's no way I can afford $2,000/six months insurance for a new car! Now, on a brighter note, I have basic with Progressive covering my wife's '96 Accord and my '98 Ranger, and we pay a total of about $375/six months...

Six months or one year period? What does Progressive consider "Basic coverage" and "Full coverage"? Is Basic liability only?

A pony car is defined as such based on the Mustang template. But muscle cars have always been powerful cars, where size wasn't critical to the definition. It's an easier definition to understand because it's horsepower based.

A black GT without the foglights and rear spoiler - interesting!

That definition is too narrow. In my experience, a muscle car is basically any car with a high performance engine in it. That's the "muscle" part. Typically GTOs, Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, 'Cudas, etc. are all muscle cars as long as they have a strong V8 in them. A GTO or Mustang with a...

It's personal preference - like colors. It would be nice for those who want scoops to be able to have them, and for those who don't to be able to go scoop-less. I lean toward liking scoops, but that depend a lot on what they actually look like. Functional is nice, but non-functional will do...

Well, I like the spoiler myself. The entire rear end reminds me of the 1970 fastback rear, with the flat panel, gas cap (even if this one is fake), and the arrangement of the taillights. The spoiler perfectly caps off the look. The great thing about this country is that everyone can share...

I'm not crazy about the front end, either. The rest of the car looks great... of course, it is basically a Shelby clone with a different front end, different hood, and sidepipes.

I think any order of varients is purely speculation. But looking over your list, what about the Mach 1? The Bullit was much later, but pointed back to a classic '68. Personally, I'd be surprised to see GT-350's or GT-500's, as well as Boss 302's, although maybe a variant using just the Boss...

Yes, that's true. Not so much unrealistic, but just measured differently. In the early '70s the 302 dropped from 210hp to 140hp... with no engine changes. Since the 302 only had a 10hp difference, that puts the 289 around 130hp - 135hp... compared to 202hp for a modern V6 - not bad for the V6...

Count me in... my first car was a '67 fastback. Loved that car, and I've always regretted parting with it. Bought several more '67's after that, but due to problems and a lack of resources I gave up on having another. But after seeing glimpses of the prototype, I became curious - and...

The 2005 has caught my eye, too. My first car was a '67 fastback, and after that I've owned a couple of other '67 fastbacks, a coupe, and even a '75. I basically gave up on getting a decent Mustang ('67) after that. But seeing this new car has stirred up the fires inside once again, and...

Bossjim, That's one sweet BOSS 302 you have there (assuming that's a pic of your car)! The '70 Mustang really looked sharp!