What if it wern't what it is?

[SixFivePony]

a) No.

b) No.

My first Mustang, which was also my first car ever, was a 67 Coupe with an I-6. My second car, also a Mustang, was a 65 Coupe with a 289.

I haven't looked back since.

Though it was always an option, the V8 in the Mustang has always been *right* It just fits the car.

To me, a Mustang has a V8 and a manual tranny. Call it a throwback to the 289/Toploader 4 speed, but that's just the way I see the car.

 

[Mustang5L5]

Designing a new Mustang that would bridge the generation gap had to be a top priority in the planning of this car. You may not care if the new car looks like the classics, but most buyers over 40 probably do.
Yes, you misssed a lot in a sense, by being born in 1981. However, since it looks like history might be trying to repeat itself, you may luck out yet!

I agree with you. Since i was born in '81, this is the first time around for this sort of styling for me. Don't get me wrong, i like the new stang a lot. All I am saying that Ford didn't need to make it look like a classic in order to appeal to myself. After all, i wasn't around for the original so this is the first time i am seeing this styling..so it's new to me. I know Ford had to consider a lot of things when deciding on what styling to go with, but for me, it just needs to look attractive.

I'm glad that Ford did go retro and remake the classic. I've noticed it has bridged the generation gap. Most people with Mustangs i know are 18-25. Now i find myself talking about Mustangs with older people who don't even own one. Just the fact that Ford is coming out with a classic-looking '05 Mustang and the fact that i own a couple is enough to strike up a conversation about Mustangs and how they have come over the years.

Maybe one day, i'll restore a '69 Mach 1. I'm dying to see what it was like to drive one on the street

 

[77M2C2]

#1. No

#2. No

Purchased my first stang in 2001 for its looks and performance,the Bullitt and just picked up a mint low mile version of the last "Retro" stang, a Mustang II Cobra II white with blue stripes and V-8. Thats what a Mustang means to me. Looks and power.

Congrats to all you new owners, its a great time for all stangers past and present.

Dale

 

[351CJ]

BTW 351CJ...that weight you gave for the II sounds really high. Even my heavily optioned V8 car registers at 3016. Perhaps the car you are refering to also was carrying a new soon to be installed 351 engine in the trunk?

Since a 351 Cleveland weights approx. 550 lb, I doubt that the Mustang II went on the scales with one under it's hatch.

Here is one source that lists the weight of a 75 Mustang 2 V8 @ 3265 lb, 25 lb less than I showed above, but still pretty heavy.
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_50vs46.htm

Road & Track tested a 74, V6 hatchback and gave its weight at 3,120 lb., again tha's for a V6!
http://www.mustangii.net/articles/mustangii_machi_74.asp

For a 1974 2.8 L V6 I show a weight of 305 lb, while a 1975 302 (all iron) weighs in @ 460 lb. So the V8 starts at 155 lb heavier BEFORE you start adding all the other heavier V8 hardware, springs, shocks, tires, trannie, etc. So 3,120 lb + 155 lb = 3,275 lb. similar to the previously quote V8 Mustang II weights.

 

[merlinsteele]

a) If the '05 did not have a V-8 and GT option, would you still be excited enough about it to buy it? Would the models past heritage and popular retro style alone, be enough to make the car worthy of your interest and possible purchase?

b) If a new '05 Mustang lacked such retro styling of the early cars, yet had the powerful 300 (or more) hp engine option etc...would you be similarily quick to purchase as you are now?

------
a) At first, I'd want to say no, becuase it would seem 'unfair' initially not to have a V-8 or GT option. However, after test driving a V6, I realize that I would be satisifed (and eventually proud) to end up with a 2005 V-6 if that were the only thing offered. Part of me says that this is the car that I SHOULD get.

b) Like most other people here, I'd have to see it. If it weren't as nice-looking as the 2004, I'd 'settle' for an anniversary mustang.

I have to add, though, that life is too short, especially when you get my age, to 'settle'. I believe that I'll go for the GT, even if I have to save up a few bucks first. Then years later, I can at least say that I tried, even if by some terrible happenstance, that I lose my car.

 

[oliverqueen]

a) If the '05 did not have a V-8 and GT option, would you still be excited enough about it to buy it? Would the models past heritage and popular retro style alone, be enough to make the car worthy of your interest and possible purchase?

b) If a new '05 Mustang lacked such retro styling of the early cars, yet had the powerful 300 (or more) hp engine option etc...would you be similarily quick to purchase as you are now

a) Yes. The '05 V6 is a great car and i think would more than hold its own in sales without the GT,they sell 70% of V6 mustangs for a reason,people simply like the car.This car occupies the I6 and lower powered 289 place of the '65,which most of the '65 owners had,you didn't see K-codes or shelbys all over the place,it was mostly "regular" mustangs like the current V6 is,the shelby,fastback and K-code image rub-off didn't come until later in the model year,they sold 22,000 the first day on what was just a sporty coupe,just like the '05 V6.
Drop the weight and tighten up the suspension,and the V6 could stand on its own, but as is,the car is in the shadow of the GT. With no V8 GT,it would suffer with the muscle car buyer,but IMO,it wasn't the mustang II that strayed from the heritage,it was the muscular '69-73 that really de-railed what the stang is about.as wonderful as the GT is now,i don't think the V8 is actually needed to continue the brand. A good performing,good looking,cheap car that can be tailor made to your needs is what the mustang is about,V8 or no. The mustang as a bargain 3-series would work wonderfully.
b) The '85 GT is my favorite mustang....nuff said. As long as it looks good,all that matters.

 

[LXXVICOBRA]

Since a 351 Cleveland weights approx. 550 lb, I doubt that the Mustang II went on the scales with one under it's hatch.

Here is one source that lists the weight of a 75 Mustang 2 V8 @ 3265 lb, 25 lb less than I showed above, but still pretty heavy.
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_50vs46.htm

Road & Track tested a 74, V6 hatchback and gave its weight at 3,120 lb., again tha's for a V6!
http://www.mustangii.net/articles/mustangii_machi_74.asp

For a 1974 2.8 L V6 I show a weight of 305 lb, while a 1975 302 (all iron) weighs in @ 460 lb. So the V8 starts at 155 lb heavier BEFORE you start adding all the other heavier V8 hardware, springs, shocks, tires, trannie, etc. So 3,120 lb + 155 lb = 3,275 lb. similar to the previously quote V8 Mustang II weights.

Gezz..what some people do to prove such a small point of contention!
It's apparent that you either didn't get my reply as a joke, or just don't like hearing one when you comment? You also mistakenly assumed that I meant a 351C, when in fact the lighter 351W would be the more common, easier, and logical swap.

Now, just to play along with this game, I have included what I feel to be a more accurate source of vehicle weights into the hypothetical scenerio.

http://www.mustangii.net/1976/76_mvma_27.asp

Now, the car I was referring to would have been a base 3 dr model 69R weighing in at 2931...2.8 V6 auto! This would explain the whole reason for the purchase and desire by the owner to replace the engine with the 351W that is riding in the hatch, and why I felt your 3290 lb example inaccurate.
Not challenging, and using your weight figures for the addition of a V8 in the hatch at appx 460 pounds (since it isn't a Cleveland), the actual total would work out more like this: 2931+460=3461. Thats 171 lbs more than your 3290 example, but close enough answer for a joke, I would think. Point is, a 4 or 6 cyl II with a V8 in the hatch would account for the bulk of the extra weight over most other II's, which probably do weigh closer to 3000 lbs total. Sorry, but I never put a lot of "weight" into specs given in magazine articles or road tests. Simply too many variables and questionable factory cars used.

I've never bothered to spend lots of time researching and sweating the small stuff either. In the big picture, it usually doesn't mean much worth getting all worked up over. I've been content using the listed weight of 3016 as stated on my registration, as being "in the ballpark" and good enough for the sake of most casual discussion. Using the table here, and adding all the options I have in my car, actually gives me a more accurate total of 3371. So, as I see it...3371-3016= a difference in error of 355 lbs. OHHH...My bad! Such is the case, when someone makes an assumption based upon possible inaccurate information. But, I don't think my car will run any slower tomorrow on account of it.
However, you are somewhat guilty of the same too, especially since I consider your sources being somewhat less accurate than the MVMA specs. Using the 3371 and subtracting the 3275 in your example, still gives a difference of 96 lbs. So, you aren't entirely correct either... and I had already conceded the point anyway in an earlier post in this thread. But, I will give you the win, since your error is less, you made a valid point, and I'm a good sport. So, how about... you can have the candy bar, I'll keep the wrapper, OK?

Bottom line? Definitions are subjective. What may be considered heavy to you may not be to me. In the big picture, pony cars are relative lightweights. No Mustang has ever been too heavy to lose on the street or the track, unless the driver has miscalculated his competition. Comparing apples to oranges never results in an answer that appeases everyone.
I don't believe I made the claim that the II was lightest Mustang made, couldn't be over any specific weight, nor made reference to the weights of the first gen or Fox cars in the first place. In fact, the only real reason a Mustang II or SN95 or '05 might be considered heavy, is to those making a comparison, and using the 2700 weight of the early cars as a baseline. Since this wasn't even near the point of the post, why make a big deal over the weight of an extra passenger?

oliverqueen.........great points! Some 71-73's certainly had some real power... but all the "hype" that surrounded the II, plus it's lack of a V8 offering in 1974, made it the logical scapegoat!

 

[LXXVICOBRA]

Though it was always an option, the V8 in the Mustang has always been *right* It just fits the car.

To me, a Mustang has a V8 and a manual tranny. Call it a throwback to the 289/Toploader 4 speed, but that's just the way I see the car.

I can appeciate your thinking in this case.... and the last words of your answer pretty much sum up the reasoning, as to why all Mustang owners don't and will never agree, on what "really qualifies" a Mustang being a "real" Mustang!

 

[351CJ]

Gezz..what some people do to prove such a small point of contention!
It's apparent that you either didn't get my reply as a joke, or just don't like hearing one when you comment? You also mistakenly assumed that I meant a 351C, when in fact the lighter 351W would be the more common, easier, and logical swap.

Thanks to the fantastic search engines on the Internet, and my own database of Ford info, it was a trivial task to come up with all that data.

I knew that you were attempting to make a joke, which is why the "Lots of Laughs" smilie was stuck in my reply.
In case you missed it:

My handle "351CJ" should have also indicated to you that the only REAL 351 is the Cleveland. 351CJ referring to the 4 bolt main "CobraJet" versions of the Cleveland.

Finally, I hate to keep arguing minutia with you, but I already gave you the weight of a 302 (all iron) which is 460 lb. 351 Windsors were listed with weights between 510 lb and 525 lb, which is barely lighter than a genuine 351 Cleveland.

PS. Edlebrock is now selling aluminum Cleveland heads.

 

[LXXVICOBRA]

Thanks to the fantastic search engines on the Internet, and my own database of Ford info, it was a trivial task to come up with all that data.

I knew that you were attempting to make a joke, which is why the "Lots of Laughs" smilie was stuck in my reply.
In case you missed it:

My handle "351CJ" should have also indicated to you that the only REAL 351 is the Cleveland. 351CJ referring to the 4 bolt main "CobraJet" versions of the Cleveland.

Finally, I hate to keep arguing minutia with you, but I already gave you the weight of a 302 (all iron) which is 460 lb. 351 Windsors were listed with weights between 510 lb and 525 lb, which is barely lighter than a genuine 351 Cleveland.

PS. Edlebrock is now selling aluminum Cleveland heads.

Well, the heavier that engine riding in the hatch gets, the larger each of our errors get!

No real argument here, but perhaps I didn't really "get" the meaning of your smiley, partially prompting my reply which I percieve you may have felt was to challenge you.
I don't venture over to this forum often, but I have read several of your posts at various times and have often thought of you as a very knowledgeable poster....in fact, just the kind of person that I hoped would respond to this thread. Assuming the weight issue can die with us both agreeing that the V8 II is heavier than some stangs but lighter than others...I would appreciate your honest answers to the questions that I posed at the start of this thread.

You have indicated that the only "real" 351 is a CJ. So, I suspect that you would be one that has a similar strong feeling in regard to the questions, and whether there may be Mustangs you don't consider real Mustangs for similar somewhat opinionated reasons. Granted, everyone's response to these questions represents just their opinion, I certainly respect that as should everyone, but, part of my reason for asking in the first place was to try and better understand the feelings of how certain Mustangers or newbies look at things like this.

While the questions do pertain to the '05 in particular, it has become obvious from the responses, that this scenerio has played itself out at all of the milestone years in the Mustang's history. The thoughts people have had about Mustangs past, carry over into the way they feel about the latest model. Age, previous ownership (or lack of), in addition to each persons individual performance and/or styling preferences all play into what constitutes a good Mustang. In the real world and online, some can view the merits of each new model with an open mind... some can't get past the feelings of their own car enough to even try.

I've read more than a few very interesting viewpoints here. What are yours?

 

[Magius231]

probably would not buy it without a V8 unless there was some evidence that the V6 was going to be a decent power producer (for example, I would love to have a Buick GN with its turbocharged v6). As far as styling goes, if it wasn't as retro as it is now I probably wouldn't be wanting it quite so much since I already have a relatively new Mustang that I like, however again I would have to see it. If it got switched to FWD I'd curse out Ford as much as I do GM now for killing off my Firebird.

 

[351CJ]

You have indicated that the only "real" 351 is a CJ. So, I suspect that you would be one that has a similar strong feeling in regard to the questions, and whether there may be Mustangs you don't consider real Mustangs for similar somewhat opinionated reasons. Granted, everyone's response to these questions represents just their opinion, I certainly respect that as should everyone, but, part of my reason for asking in the first place was to try and better understand the feelings of how certain Mustangers or newbies look at things like this.

One of my hot buttons is reminding people that our memories aren't always in agreement with reality. I was simply trying to point out (as a prior poster said) that the Mustang II was not a real lightweight. One of the Mustang II links I found referenced a C&D technical analysis article of the Mustang II. It said that the LIGHEST of all M-IIs was the 1974, 4 cyl, manual trannie @ 2,700 lb., or heavier than an 1965 Mustang 6 cl.

I am not a fan of the Mustang II, it's super short wheelbase and tiny tires make it look like an odity to me. But with that said, I totally respect the Mustang II's place in Mustang history. The Mustang II sold in HUGE numbers and rescued the Mustang nameplate from its death. Without the Mustang II and it's high sales #'s there would not be a Mustang today.

 

[LXXVICOBRA]

One of my hot buttons is reminding people that our memories aren't always in agreement with reality. I was simply trying to point out (as a prior poster said) that the Mustang II was not a real lightweight. One of the Mustang II links I found referenced a C&D technical analysis article of the Mustang II. It said that the LIGHEST of all M-IIs was the 1974, 4 cyl, manual trannie @ 2,700 lb., or heavier than an 1965 Mustang 6 cl.

I am not a fan of the Mustang II, it's super short wheelbase and tiny tires make it look like an odity to me. But with that said, I totally respect the Mustang II's place in Mustang history. The Mustang II sold in HUGE numbers and rescued the Mustang nameplate from its death. Without the Mustang II and it's high sales #'s there would not be a Mustang today.

Reply to your "hot button" paragraph:
Ummm....sorry if the "memories" in my opening post forced you into having to give yet one more "reality check" to someone.
The original "lightweight" statement however, was not a "memory", and I've already conceeded that I am not disputing the "reality" of it! I've also already explained that my thoughts about the weight issue being merely my perception of it, mostly based upon what I always considered fairly accurate info (my registration). That and the fact I was never making a direct comparison in the first place...something you seem intent on restating. Why you have highlighted that part of my post and responded with this paragraph as such...I do not know.

Reply to your Mustang II paragraph:
Perhaps you belived that I wanted your real opinion of Mustang II's, instead of the questions about the '05's that started this thread. Not really...but, based upon your previous responses here so far, I'm not really suprised that I would get it eventually. Had that been the intent of my thread, I'd have posted it in several forums, and titled it "Why don't you like what it is?", or "Would I be loved if I had a 351CJ?
Btw, I'm not a fan of the II's short wheel base or small tires either. There isn't much one can do about the wheelbase issue, but switching to larger wheels and tires is another simple, very common mod to these cars. Somehow doing this also somewhat diminishes the short wheelbase look.

Lastly, it would seem the "reality" of getting an answer to the '05 questions in my first post, is that you choose to not respond. I would have liked to have heard your thoughts there.. but, will still sleep fine tonight without them if that doesn't happen.
Thanks however, for your otherwise kind comments about the II. We are in "agreement" about them... and I will hold the "memory" of that into my senior years....when its retired from the road, and when I'll be planting flowers in the hatch.

 

[Wart]

Real cars don't have cup holders.


Bump.

 

[LXXVICOBRA]

Real cars don't have cup holders.


Bump.

Wart...I hope I don't think of your post while I'm eating turkey...I might choke! Have a great Thanksgiving..you made my day.

 

[drmustang]

V-6

V-6 Mustangs make really nice rent-a-cars. 200HP cars are for secretaries and pencil necks.

 

[rich8566]

With respect to your first question, yes, the retro look and memories of a family member who owned an early Mustang would probably be enough for me to buy the V-6. However, I did buy and take delivery of a loaded 05 Stang GT with a 5 speed manual. This combo appeals to my performance car desires and also satisfies my "muscle car" urges. All in all, a fantastic package.

With respect to your second question, I probably would not have pre-ordered the car, and I probably would not have bought the car. The key for me is the retro aspect of the car and the memories that it triggers.

 

[LXXVICOBRA]

Just a quick timeout here, to issue a public apology to 351CJ. Amidst the many responses this thread has generated, I see that I have overlooked post #14, which includes his responses to my initial questions. Thanks 351CJ...your input is appreciated, offering yet another perspective.

 

[351CJ]

Lastly, it would seem the "reality" of getting an answer to the '05 questions in my first post, is that you choose to not respond. I would have liked to have heard your thoughts there.. but, will still sleep fine tonight without them if that doesn't happen.

Please look back to my first post on your thread. I answered your original question a long time ago, before YOU chose to introduce the Mustang II subject into your thread, thus YOU were the one who corrupted the topic of this thread:

a) If it had a high performance (270 - 290 HP), smooth running V6 like the 350Z or G35 and it had all the other GT goodies (suspension, LSD, etc), YES. If all it had was the base 210 HP, V6, NO.

b) If it had ALL the improvements the 2005 has, longer wheelbase, drastically improved suspension, handling, ride, seats, 300 HP V8, etc, etc. and had decent styling, similar to the 99-04's, YES.

 

[351CJ]

Just a quick timeout here, to issue a public apology to 351CJ. Amidst the many responses this thread has generated, I see that I have overlooked post #14, which includes his responses to my initial questions. Thanks 351CJ...your input is appreciated, offering yet another perspective.

Thanks for yor apolgy LXXVICOBRA. No problem, I know that is can be difficult to read and remember every reply in a post.

As you can see from my above post time stamp, I was obviously typing it at the same time that you making your apology post.