The Complaint Department

[foghorn67]

As a Mustanger since April 18, 1964, I'm really disappointed in the new Stang! Why do they call it "retro"?? The original was low, wide and sleek. The new one is narrow, high, and that round nose looks like something straight from Mattell! The interior is so-so. Neither bad nor great, just typical mass-produced glop.

But the major disappointment is mechanical. When is Ford coming into the 21st century???? No 6-speed and no IRS. And they even lie about the rear end: ""We talked to a lot of Mustang owners as we were developing this program," said Hau Thai-Tang, chief engineer. "They are a very passionate group, and a lot of them told us – very strongly – that the all-new Mustang had to have a solid rear axle.""

NO WAY!!! We Mustangers have been BEGGING for IRS since about 1966 or 1967!! Unless they talk only to drag racers, that is simply unbelievable. It has to be a bean-counter decision. After all, they claim to be reducing the price substantially. (claim is the word - I'll believe it when I see it).

I'll stick with my 65 convert with 5.0 HO and 5-speed. Lower, wider, and considerably faster. And it doesn't look like all the rice boxes on the road!!

I cannot wait another 9 months. then this silly fantasy forum can turn into a real tech/talk forum like the rest.
It's like going to the mod or 5.0 forums and complaining that their cars don't do it for me over and over again.

 

[351CJ]

The 2005 Mustang ranks somewhere between the best looking Mustang since the 1970 and being the best looking Mustang EVER. The more I see of it the more I'm leaning towards the latter.

If someone offered me the choice of of a brand new 1965 Mustang and a brand new 2005 Mustang, I'd take the 2005 in an instant.

 

[Rootus]

id rather see the gas tank than those stupid mufflers

And I'd rather not be burned alive if I get rear-ended.

I would love to see 3" or 3.5"

Heck, why not 5 or 6"? Then we can really look like riced out civics. Except we'd be better because we have two fart cans. Maybe I can get them in chrome!

Dave

 

[oogtdude]

its very retro..too much so for me, maybe you been wishing foe irs but i havent..i dont want any extra pounds! it is longer and narrower than current,over all its ok..but aimed for middle aged buyers.. i find the cuurent model more for my age group 25-30


ps: since your so concerned about irs..my guess is you want a nice smooth ride...and 99+ will offer you a much better ride than any old 65 can

 

[KnRs88]

Im happy its a solid axle , I just hope they offer the solid axle on the cobra.

 

[66Satellite]

The 2005 Mustang ranks somewhere between the best looking Mustang since the 1970 and being the best looking Mustang EVER. The more I see of it the more I'm leaning towards the latter.

If someone offered me the choice of of a brand new 1965 Mustang and a brand new 2005 Mustang, I'd take the 2005 in an instant.

Agreed. And as Foghorn knows I'm one of the guys who has been ******ing about this car. Lol. DC rolls out a Eurotrash fantasy car, GM rolls out a Miata fighter (nice enough, I guess, but who cares?) and Ford gives the people (most of 'em, anyway) what they want--a great looking low buck pony car on a new chassis with 300HP. As long as there aren't too many bugs and the drivetrain proves to be fairly solid, I'll be parking a 5 speed GT vert next to my Satellite, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

 

[JimF65]

I cannot wait another 9 months. then this silly fantasy forum can turn into a real tech/talk forum like the rest.
It's like going to the mod or 5.0 forums and complaining that their cars don't do it for me over and over again.

A forum is for opinions, both pro and con. I have a right to my opinion, especially since I have been a Mustanger longer that 99.99% of the posters. (My first one was a silver 65 convertible, 289 4bbl (D code) 4-speed, Rally pack, bought on April 18, 1964 - I now have a late-65 that I have worked on for 5 years to update the mechanicals into the 80s). I am just disappointed that Ford can't update the running gear, and the styling is a major disappointment, especially since they regaled us with those beautiful "concept cars".

A modern transmission and suspension would make a world of difference in the drivability. So to venture into my nearby mountains, I'll just have to drive the Z3, since Ford can't see fit to improve the handling.

I was considering buying a new Mustang (convertible, of course), but not if they can't bring the performance into this century. That means more than just stoplight jumps.

 

[351CJ]

Why do they call it "retro"?? The original was low, wide and sleek. The new one is narrow, high, and that round nose looks like something straight from Mattell!

Next time you're at Home Depot you may want to pick up a new tape measure:

Mustang 1965 2005
Length 181.6 187.6
Width 68.2 72.1
Height 55.0 54.5
Wheelbase 108 107.1
Front Track 56.0 62.3
Rear Track 56.0 62.5

Looks like the 2005 is longer, lower & wider than your original. The track is a mere 6.5" wider. The only height # I was able to find was from the 1965 Shelby GT-350 street version so I imagine a regular Ford issue 65 Mustang was even higher.

 

[VOORHEES]

I happen to love the look of the '05, and happen to OWN an original 66' Fastback that my parents bought new.
I'm sure the IRS will appear before to long, just wait.
Oh, and don't be such a grump.
-Jason

 

[SVTdriver]

Speaking of sheetmetal, anyone knows what is the material used... because if it is metallic paint on plastic, that is going to scream "cheap" really loud...

Last I read it was supposed to be real aluminum.

 

[JimF65]

its very retro..too much so for me, maybe you been wishing foe irs but i havent..i dont want any extra pounds! it is longer and narrower than current,over all its ok..but aimed for middle aged buyers.. i find the cuurent model more for my age group 25-30


ps: since your so concerned about irs..my guess is you want a nice smooth ride...and 99+ will offer you a much better ride than any old 65 can

By IRS, I mean "Independent Rear Suspension". That has NOTHING to do with "smooth ride". Smooth ride is a lot of factors, but IRS is about handling, cornering, no lifting the inside wheel when I apply power in a curve. No wheel hop when you hit a bump on a curve. Keeping control of the horsepower. Yes, it's a bit heavier than a live axle but not much, and it does take up a bit of horsepower, but why do you think the Corvette has outhandled Mustang for about 25 years?? IRS is why.

Ford can do it, they just don't want to spend the bucks. Even back in '93, when I bought my late wife a new Thunderbird, it had IRS. And took curves much better then most live axles. It's about bringing the suspension out of the 60s.

I don't know why anyone would think the styling is aimed for middle aged. I didn't like gumdrop styling and fat butts when I was middle aged!!. and didn't know anybody who did!! What in the world is wrong with sleek, slender and fast-looking?? Especially if they want it to BE fast!

I guess living in South Carolina, where MODERN cars are built, has raised my expectations too much.

 

[rhumbline]

I think the only Mustangs that didn't have some or all their mufflers behind the axle were the Fox chassis models, though they have persisted a rediculous 25 years, so that's what many people only remember.

Technically it makes more sense, both from a safety standpoint and for centralization of mass, to put the heavy gas tanks ahead of the axle. And undoubtedly, numerous aftermarket companies are hard at work developing cat backs for the NextStang that will look even more appealing -- nice polished or brushed-metal finish SS cans can look quite good.

Hopefully they won't go overboard with the tip size, otherwise they just start looking like goofy characatures of themselves like oh-too-many Honda Civics.

 

[drichard]

Stern??????? I'm lost on that. You could say "BOLD" and I'd say "YES, THANK GOODNESS!!!!". I'm so sick and tired of the current softy-swoopy-black-sea-o'-plastic cheapo ill-fitting interior in the current Mustang, that this new interior is like a sign that there is indeed a God. BMW and Mercedes and Porsche and Audi, IMHO, currently are the WORLD STANDARD when it comes to interior styling, fit, finish and materials. Ford is aiming squarely at them when it comes to quality and fit and finish, but with a retro Mustang flare that is pure American. I like a crisp and bold edge in the interior, it screams quality. Embrace change, because it's good, and without it, we'd all still have mullet hairdo's and big gold chains. If it startles you, that's probably a good thing. Things that are more familiar get awfully boring, really quick. And I was snoring-bored with the outgoing interior.

I did not say the old interior was not outdated... the 90's are gone... but the 80's too. Change is good when you go foreward... Am I the only one that remember the 80's ??? This is so typical of nowdays and you see it in clothings everywhere... welcome back to the 80's.... I hope we won't have the haircuts back... please.

 

[oogtdude]

sure it handles better in corners..i preffer better launches than better cornering and handling...i rather have a lil wheel hop over a bump then trying to launch fast

 

[351CJ]

=oogtdude it is longer and narrower than current,

The 2005 is not narrower than the 99-04. The widest part of the 99-04 is the rear fender bulges @ 73". However the average width of the 99-94 is less than 70". I guarantee you that the average width of the 2005 (especially the front fenders) is wider than the 99-04.

 

[RICKS]

What about the '05 Mustang interior has anything to do with the interiors of anything from the '80's?? The '05 borrows alot of inspiration from 1967, with 69-70-ish seats, but the execution is truly forward-thinking and extremely modern. The interior looks like it belongs in a concept, AND IT'S PRODUCTION! I don't know what you were hoping for, but I can't figure it out. I think Ford did just as nifty a job at taking the look of the past, and making it look futuristic, as Nissan did with the 350Z, which is another really super-cool and futuristic looking interior that used a 70's car as inspiration. Just because you draw in elements from the past, in no way means necessarily that you're moving backwards. If there's another car interior out there that you wish the Mustang would look like (or relate to), then please share...

 

[JimF65]

sure it handles better in corners..i preffer better launches than better cornering and handling...i rather have a lil wheel hop over a bump then trying to launch fast

IRS does not affect launch. Neither better nor worse. (Unless you break traction with a wheel, then IRS is better launch due to better control). If you want real launch, WAY out of Mustang class, drive a new Corvette (which has IRS).

Either way, driving is about a lot more than the dragstrip.

 

[drichard]

I agree with Jim... I think the new Mustang is neither a modern car, nor a retro car...
I think it's a missed one... I'm going to be looking for a early model now that I see what the new one is...

 

[Highbredcloud]

Personally...I hate the way you can see the mufflers, however, from a safety point of view I see why it's the way that it is. A solution to this problem is to get a back bumper ground f/x sort of like the concept that you can only see the holes where the tips of the muffler stick out. I hope having the mufflers in the back won't affect the way a Mustang should sound like...just my $.02

 

[66Satellite]

If you want real launch, WAY out of Mustang class, drive a new Corvette (which has IRS).

No offense, but how is this a relevant statement? The Vette costs twice what the Mustang does and only has two seats. Comparing a Mustang to a Vette is like comparing a Vette to a Ferrari. Try to find a 4 seat v8 RWD car for $25k that is as nice as the Mustang GT. Oh wait, no one else makes one.