"New" Pictures...nothing special

Stangnut

Member
Mar 24, 2003
483
0
16
Dothan, AL
Just found these on Edmunds.com. I hadn't seen them, but if they're not new, I'll just delete the message, so let me know.

Jason
030337-E.jpg

030338-E.jpg

030339-E.jpg

030340-E.jpg

030341-E.jpg
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Kael Pershaw said:
Looks like it needs to be about an inch lower. And sonic blue. =)
I agree about the height. I plan on calling Ford tommorrow and giving my opinion.

1-800-392-FORD (3673)
1-800-833-0312 (TDD for the hearing impaired)

Hours (Eastern Standard Time):
8 a.m. - 8 p.m., Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., Saturday

I hope everyone else does the same.

Jason
 
Stangnut said:
Now that's a good "real world" picture! Where'd you find that? Any more?
It was posted over on TheMustangSource, as usual. Check in the Timeline, new pictures show up there periodically. Also the Forums.

Stangnut said:
I agree about the height. I plan on calling Ford tommorrow and giving my opinion.
Did you call about the current Mustang as well? This is par for the course, we have always made springs one of the first modifications for a Stang. Ford has to please more than just the enthusiasts, so I can't say as I blame them for giving it a cushy ride. Easily corrected, and bitching to Ford won't help.

Dave
 
A lot of it has to do with how high the seat is. Roads are designed assuming that you sit 3.5' off the ground. Lowering that even a few inches can decrease the sight distance required on roads, around corners, and can change where you see road signs. Not a big deal most of the time, but if your coming over a hill and theres a stop sign right after it, you may not see it in time. As to why other manufactorers lower there cars, their seats may sit higher allowing them to lower the car a few inches. Seat design is probably the difference between other cars.
 
Ride quality? The Lincoln LS has less wheel well gap, it's mind boggling why Ford after getting a whole new chassis and suspension can't make the car look right. Every other car I see on the road has very little gap between the top of the tire and the fender, heck, most other Fords are better in this regard. Why does the Mustang need 4x4 ride height for ride quality when not even luxury cars do? There's simply no excuse.

It's bad enough they put those awful minivan tires on it, why the hell would they downgrade from the 94-04 tire size? Don't they know using these high profile skinny all season tires will hamper it's handling, braking, and off the line acceleration? Which no doubt, all the magazines will fault it for.. :nonono: :nonono:
 
Stangbang said:
Ride quality? The Lincoln LS has less wheel well gap, it's mind boggling why Ford after getting a whole new chassis and suspension can't make the car look right. Every other car I see on the road has very little gap between the top of the tire and the fender, heck, most other Fords are better in this regard. Why does the Mustang need 4x4 ride height for ride quality when not even luxury cars do? There's simply no excuse.

It's bad enough they put those awful minivan tires on it, why the hell would they downgrade from the 94-04 tire size? Don't they know using these high profile skinny all season tires will hamper it's handling, braking, and off the line acceleration? Which no doubt, all the magazines will fault it for.. :nonono: :nonono:

You are so right man! I thought the 05s would have these issues addressed. The tires arent going to be wide enough and the car is still going to sit too high. All the development cars look decent with the lower stance. Now that I have seen that Mineral Grey one, I am now thinking the new 05s will still have that 4x4 look. It amazes me how these two simple issues cant be changed. I guess thats why there is an aftermarket.
 
not ride quality, ride height. And there may be certain restrictions for mass produced cars that are scheduled for say 100,000 units or more. That may be where theres some variation. I dont know any of this for a fact, its purely speculation, but what i do know is that auto makers are supposed to meet the required 3.5' from road to eye height. Im sure theres some variation but this is the standard that roads are designed with.