The Complaint Department

[sweet~Low~93]

Perhaps I should post a poll and let everyone vote whether I should lock and delete this thread to keep us all from getting any dumber, or should I let it keep going and see just how low we can go.

Technically, there has been nothing done in this forum that is considered being against the rules, but I have a bad feeling it will end up that way.

Perhaps everyone can ignore this post before certain members lose even more credibility with the rest of the forum.

Well first this tread is not dumb, just talking out the Pro's Cons of new 05 design

Some people don't care about fog lights in grill ' to big ?


There a reason why i'm bring the designs up. would like to get feed back what another mustang people think.

I'm just a mustang nut if there a part that could be improved i'll work on designing it better .

Great to get all the different feedback for everyone. for young to old mustang fans


If there's anything else someone doesn't like on 05 bring it up. would like to hear what you don't like.

Thanks for all info. everyone ! treads Over

 

[skywarp]

Perhaps I should post a poll and let everyone vote whether I should lock and delete this thread to keep us all from getting any dumber, or should I let it keep going and see just how low we can go.

Technically, there has been nothing done in this forum that is considered being against the rules, but I have a bad feeling it will end up that way.

Perhaps everyone can ignore this post before certain members lose even more credibility with the rest of the forum.

I can't believe theres even a thread on this topic. I would've thought you know more technical stuff about electronics,more specs etc. Its sad. Tyler lock it down baby.

 

[skywarp]

Well first this tread is not dumb, just talking out the Pro's Cons of new 05 design

Some people don't care about fog lights in grill ' to big ?


There a reason why i'm bring the designs up. would like to get feed back what another mustang people think.

I'm just a mustang nut if there a part that could be improved i'll work on designing it better .

Great to get all the different feedback for everyone. for young to old mustang fans


If there's anything else someone doesn't like on 05 bring it up. would like to hear what you don't like.

Thanks for all info. everyone ! treads Over

The reason most things changed on the 05 was for safety, cost and emissions reasons from the First Generation Stang. IBL

 

[Rootus]

What a ridiculous thread....

Yes indeed.

Would you rather have the rear fill if they were to have shifted their engineering resources and gave up the variable valve timing 3V V-8 engine? Not likely.

Well, I wouldn't mind if they'd skip the engineering resources on the 4.6L and just put back in a 302. They could save a lot on engineering, just get a contract to produce large quantities of AFR heads, and we could have a 350 hp N/A GT with lots of torque.

Oh well.

Dave

 

[tylers65]

I'm not just going to lock down a thread. No rules have been broken, I was just kidding about voting on whether it stays open or not.

But seriously, we as a group can find so much better things to spend our time discussing besides things that will not change.

The car WILL have a propr rod no matter who here does not like it.
The car WILL have the fuel cap on the driver's side and not the rear.

What is done is done, now sit back and wait to see the real thing on dealer lots.

 

[Mach172]

I think that if you were doing 40 and he was doing 60, then you already had forward momentum. This means that you were hit at what would be considered 20 to 30 MPH. Do a search on BON about rear end collisions and Mustangs exploding. When the SN95 Verts get hit hard enough, not only do they burst into flames, but the doors get jammed shut and you cannot escape. Ask around the classic forum about it. I own a 65 and have done my homework. They explode on high impact. period. But you are young and death cannot touch you. I spent 3 month in a neck brace and physical thearopy only to live the rest of my life with ongoing neck and back problems. Why, because there were no head rests in the car I was in. your 85 Civic had 20 years of collision technology on the 65. Crumple zones and shields do a lot for you in a wreck. The classics did not have these.

All I ask is that you do a little studying before you run your mouth about what you think you know.

I had a '66,'68 and a '72 Mach 1, all three of these cars had gas tanks that doubled as the trunk floor, and if you look at them, you can see how easily they could rupture, just from the design of the tank, and the fact there was nothing between them and the passengers besides the back of the rear seat, tyler65 is right about these, back then I never gave it a thought! The thing about the SN95 vert's is responsible for me trading my '00 GT! Sorry about your injuries tyler, I can relate, I lost my lower right leg when I was 18 in the Navy, and have had to live with that!
Sorry for the :OT: here at the end!

 

[RussStang]

Yes indeed.

Well, I wouldn't mind if they'd skip the engineering resources on the 4.6L and just put back in a 302. They could save a lot on engineering, just get a contract to produce large quantities of AFR heads, and we could have a 350 hp N/A GT with lots of torque.

Oh well.

Dave

 

[351CJ]

Since the 2005 Stang is Retro why not put the gas cap behind the licence plate like on old cars.

1. Old Stang's didn't have the filler behind the plate.

2. Having owned several cars with the filler behind the plate way down low, they are also a big pain in the butt, you have to bend way over to get to the filler and they also like to spit back at you because the filler is so low.

3. I'm still tramatized from seeing too many middle aged 300 lb. men bent over their Impalla's bumper with their butt crack showing as they filled it up.

 

[63_Fairlane]

A few thoughts on fuel tanks and fuel fillers...

1. The fuel tanks on 60s and 70s vintage mustangs was also the trunk floor. Thus there was no seperation between the tank and the interior of the car. This is a severe fire hazard. If any damage occurred to the tank, then gas was introduced into passenger compartment.

2. The gas tanks are mounted under the body on all of the fox Mustangs. Sheet metal seperated the tank from the interior. Much safer.

3. Placing a fuel filler neck though the rear of the car would add substantial complexity (read cost) and increase the chance of gas spilling into the interior of the car during a crash. Metal shielding and possibly a sheet metal bulkhead in the trunk would be required to negate the potential hazard.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Tyler,

I am appologize. I sometimes get so excited in here that I go crazy. Forgive me for doing this. I will try to calm down in here.

 

[terrydf]

I don't give a rip about the filler location... But this thread - although mundane and useless - has been very entertaining!

Note to Ron: I support our troops too

 

[Hydrocarbon]

I seem to remember reading about the last shelby mustangs (69/70) that had the rear neck filler with the exhaust outlet right below it. In rare cases, if you overfilled the tank, the gas would leak out the filler cap under acceleration (gas caps weren't sealed). It would then run down onto the exhaust and catch on fire!

[Sarcasm] They should bring back that design! [Sarcasm]\

 

[vyto2]

I know, let's give the guys that want rear filler caps to work a 5 gallon ziplock bag of gas to carry on their lap while they drive, that ought to be just as safe...

 

[Mach172]

I know, let's give the guys that want rear filler caps to work a 5 gallon ziplock bag of gas to carry on their lap while they drive, that ought to be just as safe...

 

[WERM]

It wouldn't be an engineering nightmare to have a rear fuel door. Just make the Mustang like it was in the 60's and early 70's. The current 2005 design is basically the same so there would be no problem having a fuel door in the back of the car. And who cares about the car exploding from a rear end collision. I haven't seen any of the 60's and early 70's Mustangs explode from a rear end collision. That's a bunch of BS. Only the environmentalists and the socialists wouldn't want a rear fuel door in a car.

Classic mustangs have a fuel tank bolted to the bottom of the trunk (the top of the tank is the trunk floor), combined with a rear facing filler neck. In a rear end collision, this gas tank can become loose or damaged or the neck can be severed from the tank, causing fuel to leak. Combine that with the fact that there is no real barrier between the trunk and the cockpit and you have a very dangerous combination where it is easy for fuel and fire to enter the cockpit. Pick up some classic Mustang magazines and look through the ads.. there are people out there selling steel barriers to bolt behind the rear seat for this very reason.

 

[jcp123]

hmm. strange. my filler neck never really gets in the way...do yall really ever fill your trunks up that much?? lol

 

[SVTdriver]

In my fastback it starts to take up room real quick.

 

[Mach172]

In my fastback it starts to take up room real quick.

The worst I had was my '72 Mach 1, damn that trunk was small, and the fuel neck made it worse, what was even more scary about that car and the tank, was you could fold the back seat down and open an access to the trunk!

 

[SVTdriver]

Exactly.

 

[pairofnines]

The worst I had was my '72 Mach 1, damn that trunk was small, and the fuel neck made it worse, what was even more scary about that car and the tank, was you could fold the back seat down and open an access to the trunk!

My trunk is friggin small too, luckily I got a steel reinforcement so I have a better chance incase of a rear end collision. I can only fit like 4 or 5 grocery bags along with my spare tire (hey, I get groceries in it too ). Not much room.