Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Motor Trend)   Forty nine years ago today, the Ford Mustang was born. Happy Birthday   (wot.motortrend.com) divider line 82
    More: Spiffy, Mustang GT, Mercury Capri, Ford Motor Company, muscle cars, Shelby Mustang, New York World  
•       •       •

1603 clicks; posted to Business » on 17 Apr 2013 at 6:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-17 10:30:44 PM  

dforkus: Look at the slalom, skidpad, and track times on the 2013 302 boss and the Laguna seca versions.

sub 50k cars that are doing just fine without IRS.


You mean the Randy Pobst videos where they experienced brake fade after the first couple of laps? He also complained about the car's rear end drifting coming out of a lot of corners. If you're going to blow $ in the $40K-$50K range for a track car, get a used C6 Z06 Corvette. The great thing about it is most Z06 owners are old farts who baby them, so the odds of getting one near showroom floor condition and driven lightly are VERY good.
 
2013-04-17 10:45:06 PM  
Only Mustang makes it happen!
Only Mustang makes life great!
Only Mustang makes it happen!
Mustang! Mustang!  Sixty-eight!

//Got a '97 GT Convertible.  Aztec Gold.
 
2013-04-17 10:45:15 PM  

dforkus: DjangoStonereaver: I still say that the 1965 'Stand Fastback was the most beautifully proportioned and visually balanced car of all time:

[www.allfordmustangs.com image 800x480]

My Dad had a white one.

65 was a great year, the mustang looked great, C2 corvettes going strong, and my favorite the 65 riveria:
[www.richardandkarencarpenter.com image 684x365]


That looks awesome.. very muscular.
 
2013-04-17 10:49:07 PM  

NeverUseAbsolutes: There's a number stamped on the left fender under the hood, and one on the block.  I thought they match, but it has been a long time since I actually looked at them.  I can say with confidence that the engine came with the car.  In fact, all the body panels are original.  It was never in a serious accident.

I don't have the original sticker for the car, but I do have the loan doc.  He paid $2758.42 for it.  Traded in a '62 Cadillac.


I'm a bit older than you, and I clearly recall those way-cool Ford Mustang commercials on TV (you know, the ones with the wild mustang herd running along side the road while the presenter tells you how much you want a new Ford Mustang...). Anyway, I used to hound my dad about getting a Mustang, but he just snorted and asked "How we gonna fit 5 kids in that thing?"

He drove a Dodge pickup from the late 40's until he died in '94. Never had a sporty car, just an endless series of Country Squires. LOL...
 
2013-04-17 11:15:30 PM  
No discussion of Mustangs is complete without:

0.tqn.com

What a turd.
 
2013-04-18 12:16:01 AM  
worked in a Ford dealership when these came out. drove a bunch, many with the 289 and the 4 speed. wasn't impressed then nor later. the poor boys try at ? not a muscle car. certainly not a sports car. but hey the marketing was great, they were popular so good for Lee and good for Ford.
 
2013-04-18 12:26:56 AM  
My very first car was a 1969 Boss 302.

I was lucky to escape with my life.
 
2013-04-18 01:16:44 AM  
I've got a '12 V6 with slushbox as my daily driver. Traded in an '04 Civic Hybrid.

I know there are plenty of gearheads who would tell me it's not a real Mustang, and to be honest, I half agree. But y'know what? I enjoy driving it. Still has more guts than most other cars on the road, looks good, and has everything that I want in a car. Even drives well in winter. I could've afforded a GT and I miss a stick shift sometimes, but I've got a commute. This car works well for me. So well that I took it on an 8000-mile trip around the country last summer and loved it; Hwy 101, CA-1, and Rt. 66. Even drove it past the factory in Flat Rock (and I live in WA). Was a fantastic time, I'll never forget it.

Of course, I'm single. If I needed a car to carry more stuff/people it'd probably be a Charger. But I love the pony. And I look forward to seeing what Ford does for the 50th too.
 
2013-04-18 01:36:19 AM  
What, no love for the Mustang ll? I had a used 1978 hatchback 1985-86. It was a neat little car. It was a thrill to get buffeted and shaken by the wind taking highway 1 south from SF to Pacifica.
 
2013-04-18 01:55:26 AM  
Feel free to drool. 53,000 original miles. All original interior, 4-bbl 289. All mine.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-18 03:06:56 AM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: No discussion of Mustangs is complete without:


Kevin72: What, no love for the Mustang ll? I had a used 1978 hatchback 1985-86. It was a neat little car. It was a thrill to get buffeted and shaken by the wind taking highway 1 south from SF to Pacifica.


That's what the Mulally-run Ford will do with the Mustang if given the chance.  This time, it'll look like an Aston Martin ripoff with the abomination called EcoBoost under the hood.  Yes, the hippie-friendly turbo, put in a car meant for representing American muscle.  Repeating that mistake should be an instant termination offense, fuel economy be farked.

That's like Coca-Cola bringing back New Coke, letting people know it's (the now-old) New Coke, and expecting different results.


NightSteel: I've got a '12 V6 with slushbox as my daily driver. Traded in an '04 Civic Hybrid.

I know there are plenty of gearheads who would tell me it's not a real Mustang, and to be honest, I half agree. But y'know what? I enjoy driving it. Still has more guts than most other cars on the road, looks good, and has everything that I want in a car. Even drives well in winter. I could've afforded a GT and I miss a stick shift sometimes, but I've got a commute. This car works well for me. So well that I took it on an 8000-mile trip around the country last summer and loved it; Hwy 101, CA-1, and Rt. 66. Even drove it past the factory in Flat Rock (and I live in WA). Was a fantastic time, I'll never forget it.

Of course, I'm single. If I needed a car to carry more stuff/people it'd probably be a Charger. But I love the pony. And I look forward to seeing what Ford does for the 50th too.


Do not be ashamed of having one of the few American cars that Ford still has left.  That, and the V6/I6 engines haven't been too bad for a Mustang.  Even if it's an automatic, it's still not bad; you'll still get to chirp tires if you really wanted to do it.

My only wish is if they'd have more than just the cramped-rear fastback for non-convertible models.  Visibility isn't just for the forward and side windows.
 
2013-04-18 03:51:34 AM  
Is this the thread where i point out imports are better than domestics and brag about my car?

/mr2 with 2grfe 6cyl engine swap
//35mpg hwy, 300-odd hp
/// had some good times in an 80s mustang in my youth
 
2013-04-18 06:27:29 AM  
Mustangs are for girls. And I don't mean "for picking up girls."
 
2013-04-18 07:33:37 AM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: No discussion of Mustangs is complete without:

[0.tqn.com image 600x465]

What a turd.


I'd rather have a Mustang II than one of those foxbody stangs from '79 to '04

Fortunately, I've a 66 "Mustang" T5
/getting a kick out of this....
 
2013-04-18 08:31:25 AM  

ToastTheRabbit: tiiger: As a practical matter, the Challenger is a better daily driver.  The mustang is better through the bends, but I have cargo space in my Chally and a usable back seat.

The mustang has a "Theoretical" back seat that can seat 2 children if they have been amputated from the waist down.

The trunk can hold ... pretty much nothing..


Hmm, too bad that's not really true at all.  I have an inflatable 2-seater kayak that fits quite nicely in the trunk and my rather heavy set friend has sat in the back seat several times and has said that it's not that bad.

imageshack.us

/still debating whether I want to trade it in next year for a 50th anniversary
 
2013-04-18 08:57:46 AM  

Curious: worked in a Ford dealership when these came out. drove a bunch, many with the 289 and the 4 speed. wasn't impressed then nor later. the poor boys try at ? not a muscle car. certainly not a sports car. but hey the marketing was great, they were popular so good for Lee and good for Ford.


I started driving in '66, so I know you're lying. Until the Mustang came along only the wealthy could afford that kind of V-8 performance, earlier efforts by Ford, GM and Dodge notwithstanding.

NightSteel: I've got a '12 V6 with slushbox as my daily driver. Traded in an '04 Civic Hybrid.

I know there are plenty of gearheads who would tell me it's not a real Mustang, and to be honest, I half agree.


Not to worry, as the Mustang was always intended as a 'secretary's car'...good looking, economical to operate, decent performance and easy to drive on the daily commute. You like it because you are using it exactly as the base Mustang was intended.
 
2013-04-18 09:20:39 AM  
sethstorm: ...with the abomination called EcoBoost under the hood.  Yes, the hippie-friendly turbo...

You post this EcoBoost hate in every single Ford-related thread, and I have to wonder...did an EcoBoost engine murder your family and everyone you care about?  What's so terrible about it?  Modern turbocharged engines are a far cry from the laggy, unreliable monstrosities of the '80s.  We have the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 in our F-150, and it gets better fuel economy when not towing (during the week) than the 5.0L V8, and more torque and a broader, flatter torque curve than the Coyote when towing.  The turbos are sealed and maintenance-free.  Over 40% of F-150s sold last year (so over 250,000) were EcoBoost-equipped.

The smaller 2.0L I4 EcoBoost is a bit too small for the heavy Explorer, but it excels in the lighter Edge, and that same motor in the Focus ST is incredible!

GM and others are scrambling to catch up with Ford in this regard.  Power of a V8, economy of a V6, same maintenance as a naturally aspirated engine.  Where's the downside?

/Would love an EcoBoost Raptor
//Would love an EcoBoost Mustang, too!
 
2013-04-18 09:20:57 AM  

Explodo: I'm so happy that the Mustang is finally getting a proper rear suspension for 2015.  Solid axles compromise performance for everything other than drag racing and rock crawling.



My 1994 with a full G-Trac Steeda suspension would like a word:

img.fark.net

Trust me, it would change your opinion of what is possible with a solid rear axle.
 
2013-04-18 09:37:24 AM  

MadManMoon: GM and others are scrambling to catch up with Ford in this regard.  Power of a V8, economy of a V6, same maintenance as a naturally aspirated engine.  Where's the downside?


It's funny because many of the people who are most opposed to the idea are the tuners, the guys who will brag all day about the new blower they just put on their car to double its HP.  I think the N/A aspect just has nostalgia.  I'm debating what to do with mine.  I could spend $4k on new heads, cams and intake to bring the power up to around the new 5.0s, or I could drop the same or a little more on a supercharger for around the same results.  Personally I'm a little partial to the N/A setup, only because once you've built that up as far as you can, you can add forced induction on top if you really want a pure drag car.
 
2013-04-18 09:38:38 AM  

MadManMoon: The smaller 2.0L I4 EcoBoost in the Focus ST is incredible!

/Would love an EcoBoost Raptor
//Would love an EcoBoost Mustang, too!



I have an ST for a daily driver, and it is a great car. I almost bought a 5.0 instead, but much happier with the useability of the ST.

As for the other two someone built an Ecoboost Raptor and it's is as awesome as you'd think. My GF has a Raptor and it is a farking fuel-pig.

Also, don't be surprised if the next-gen GT500 has a Coyote with twin-turbos.
 
2013-04-18 10:38:04 AM  

NightSteel: I look forward to seeing what Ford does for the 50th too.


As impractical as it is, I'm sure my wife and I will ogle it...
 
2013-04-18 11:35:39 AM  

fatalvenom: Explodo: I'm so happy that the Mustang is finally getting a proper rear suspension for 2015.  Solid axles compromise performance for everything other than drag racing and rock crawling.


My 1994 with a full G-Trac Steeda suspension would like a word:

[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Trust me, it would change your opinion of what is possible with a solid rear axle.


No matter what you've got, a proper IRS will outperform a solid axle for everything other than drag racing and rock crawling.  You can make solid axle cars go fast and handle pretty well, but if you put effort into an IRS for it you'll do even better.  It's just physics, man.  Sure you can make a solid axle handle better than a bad IRS, but a good IRS beats an excellent solid axle every time.
 
2013-04-18 12:26:08 PM  

nytmare: The Flexecutioner: 50 years is more important.

Forty-nine is Five Zero in mustang years.


I LOL'ed
 
2013-04-18 12:36:16 PM  

gluestickralph: And in all that time the rear suspension is still pretty much unchanged. Wonder if for even knows you can put IRS on a car? Or that some customers don't enjoy driving something slightly less refined than a log skidder.


I'm guessing they do
 
2013-04-18 12:41:12 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: gluestickralph: And in all that time the rear suspension is still pretty much unchanged. Wonder if for even knows you can put IRS on a car? Or that some customers don't enjoy driving something slightly less refined than a log skidder.

I'm guessing they do


That IRS isn't a good IRS.  It wasn't a design where they engineered the car around a good suspension.  The engineered the suspension to fit where the solid axle one already was.
 
2013-04-18 02:27:24 PM  
What a turd.

Stop hatin' on the II.  Looking back 40 years, sure...it sucked.  Nearly every 'pony car' did.

But the II was the right Mustang at the right time, allowing the lineage to make it continuously to today.  It helped lead the necessary downsizing trend (face it - the 71-73 were pigs).  In a budget constrained time they were able to reconfigure a mostly-Pinto chassis with better driving traits, while improving mpg and back room seat as while.

You could go full Ghia or racer-boy Cobra II (hideous looking to me...).  Utility of a hatchback.  Oh yeah and they sold well over half a million.

Most importantly, it got the Mustang name to 1979 and the Fox chassis.

Respect the II.

/Love the '13.  Can't wait for the '15!!!
 
2013-04-18 02:37:06 PM  
Since we're posting photos.. she's not much, but she's paid for!

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-04-18 03:18:28 PM  

ToastTheRabbit: tiiger: As a practical matter, the Challenger is a better daily driver.  The mustang is better through the bends, but I have cargo space in my Chally and a usable back seat.

The mustang has a "Theoretical" back seat that can seat 2 children if they have been amputated from the waist down.

The trunk can hold ... pretty much nothing..

This is tru


The back seat of the mustang is Ford's contribution to birth control.

The trunk on the other hand, varies in size depending on model year.  My '95 GT has a lot of space back there.  Two full size golf bags go in there no problem.  Not a 4 dead hooker trunk like my Intrepid but 2 will fit in there without too much trouble.
 
2013-04-18 06:30:04 PM  

StrangeQ: ToastTheRabbit: tiiger: As a practical matter, the Challenger is a better daily driver.  The mustang is better through the bends, but I have cargo space in my Chally and a usable back seat.

The mustang has a "Theoretical" back seat that can seat 2 children if they have been amputated from the waist down.

The trunk can hold ... pretty much nothing..

Hmm, too bad that's not really true at all.  I have an inflatable 2-seater kayak that fits quite nicely in the trunk and my rather heavy set friend has sat in the back seat several times and has said that it's not that bad.

[imageshack.us image 850x635]

/still debating whether I want to trade it in next year for a 50th anniversary


You have one generation up from mine. It does have ALOT more room than the 2002. nice car BTW. =)
 
2013-04-18 06:37:09 PM  

MadHatter500: ToastTheRabbit: tiiger: As a practical matter, the Challenger is a better daily driver.  The mustang is better through the bends, but I have cargo space in my Chally and a usable back seat.

The mustang has a "Theoretical" back seat that can seat 2 children if they have been amputated from the waist down.

The trunk can hold ... pretty much nothing..

This is tru

The back seat of the mustang is Ford's contribution to birth control.

The trunk on the other hand, varies in size depending on model year.  My '95 GT has a lot of space back there.  Two full size golf bags go in there no problem.  Not a 4 dead hooker trunk like my Intrepid but 2 will fit in there without too much trouble.


MadHatter500: ToastTheRabbit: tiiger: As a practical matter, the Challenger is a better daily driver.  The mustang is better through the bends, but I have cargo space in my Chally and a usable back seat.

The mustang has a "Theoretical" back seat that can seat 2 children if they have been amputated from the waist down.

The trunk can hold ... pretty much nothing..

This is tru

The back seat of the mustang is Ford's contribution to birth control.

The trunk on the other hand, varies in size depending on model year.  My '95 GT has a lot of space back there.  Two full size golf bags go in there no problem.  Not a 4 dead hooker trunk like my Intrepid but 2 will fit in there without too much trouble.


Mine is a convertible. the notch back hard tops have quite a bit more room. I am top down most of the time so I can carry either groceries or a golf bag. top up if I want to carry luggage to the airport.
 
2013-04-18 10:37:05 PM  

ToastTheRabbit: You have one generation up from mine. It does have ALOT more room than the 2002. nice car BTW. =)


Aw, didn't see that was yours at the top of the thread, thought you were just bashin' them.  I like the new edge design, almost bought an 02 black cobra vert instead of what I have now.  Yours looks nice.
 
2013-04-18 10:51:12 PM  

MadHatter500: The back seat of the mustang is Ford's contribution to birth control.


Only if you're referring to at least the ones made since 2000-ish where they were made as fastbacks.   What was wrong in bringing back the non-fastback in a hardtop - too much reminders of the 1980s?


MadManMoon: You post this EcoBoost hate in every single Ford-related thread, and I have to wonder...did an EcoBoost engine murder your family and everyone you care about?  What's so terrible about it?  Modern turbocharged engines are a far cry from the laggy, unreliable monstrosities of the '80s.  We have the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 in our F-150, and it gets better fuel economy when not towing (during the week) than the 5.0L V8, and more torque and a broader, flatter torque curve than the Coyote when towing.  The turbos are sealed and maintenance-free.  Over 40% of F-150s sold last year (so over 250,000) were EcoBoost-equipped


Given that I've driven some of Ford's American-design cars('67 Mustang 289, '79 Cougar XR7 351W, '06 Mustang[as a rental]), I'm used to seeing a bit more naturally-derived power in the car.  The kind of power that gets you around other cars, provides quick, yet smooth acceleration, and a pleasing bass note not heard much outside of trucks these days.   That, and I begin to wonder if they still do their research on pleasing engine sounds if not to mask the fact that there's an I-4 under the hood, not a V-6.

By the current way Ford has been run, they murdered about every American car platform; they might as well ship the Mustang to Chrysler, the F series to GM, and finish off Job #1.  


The smaller 2.0L I4 EcoBoost is a bit too small for the heavy Explorer, but it excels in the lighter Edge, and that same motor in the Focus ST is incredible!

Wouldn't mind seeing a Focus with a naturally aspirated 6 just to offend the fark out of Al Gore; I'd also like to see the same (or a V8) in their Mondeo to match its looks.  To deal with their Lincoln and fleet sales issues, resurrect the Panther platform already;  it's not as if  that can't have EcoBoost as evidenced by the use of it in the F-series trucks.  As for the vans, quit it with the Transit golfcarts and just go with F-series diesels.


GM and others are scrambling to catch up with Ford in this regard.  Power of a V8, economy of a V6, same maintenance as a naturally aspirated engine.  Where's the downside?

Which is specifically why I'd rather go with GM or Chrysler.  Some of us still want extra cylinders without having the mandatory luxury tier upgrade.
 
Displayed 32 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report