2005 FORD MUSTANG

No restoration vs. restoration. 490 V-8 vs small block. Living on E-bay and out of catalogs for parts vs. its covered.

Since you posted to the F-body news group, I'll make the assumption your considering an F-body. If so, here's something else to think about.

I'm in central PA. My buddy just purchased a 2000 Z-28 with 34K miles, LS-1 with 6-speed, high-end radio, and t-tops. Mint for $14K.

Bottom line, you can get a good F-body for less than a new Mustang. But, you have to be willing to look around, took my buddy 6 months to find the Z.

Good luck, let us know the outcome.

Or he could be looking for opinions on the new Mustang, from a different perspective. I for one, was a little underwhelmed by what I saw at the SF International Car Show this weekend. The last concept I saw was something I'd seriously consider, it was low in the back like the fastback, had the classic grill, and some angular lines that said "fast" (not to mention it was supposed to be rated at 340HP). The ones that are now rolling off the assembly line, look like they where shortened in length, not as low in the back, and missing the trademark vents for the rear wheels -- maybe they were trying to create more head-room for the back seats? Also the V-8 is rated at 300HP. If it does have indepent suspension, that would be the only plus in my mind. Then again, Chevy/Pontiac currently have nothing to offer as an alternative (unless you like the new, more expensive GTO, which looks the same as last year's, but is now rated at 400HP/395 lb-ft).

~w~

Buy. Shut up and buy. They are very cool. KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

Any one that torn on weither they shgould buy a car should not buy one. They will end up selling it soon after purchase. Charles

I seriously doubt that is the case if the car in question pleases its new owner in every area of use. I'm not a Ford guy, but from what I've read the new Mustang is really something. KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

There was what I think is a new Mustang in the Park-and-Ride lot tonight. Nice looking, but it didn't jump out at me. Stockier and less angular than the previous version. It definitely has retro-ish lines, but I wouldn't call it a throwback or anything.

There was also a new Vette; both black and it was dark, so kind of hard to get a good view. The Vette screams FAST CAR; the Mustang was kind of cool-looking-retroish-sports-car.

I will stick with my 01 Z28 for now.

Steven Goodman snipped-for-privacy@ancore.com

It doesn't matter what type or brand of car it is. Call it Feiro Syndrome. People wanted a sports car, yet they weren't sure. Then after 6 months or less of driving the beasties they were sitting somewhere up for sale.

If someone really wants a car, they should buy what they want. Not what a salesperson wants them to have, or what we think they should have. Charles

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:01:31 GMT, "Charles Bendig" puked:

In addition, look for what you need. I owned a Mitsubishi Starion for a year. It was cool driving it for the first week, but then I realized that little turbo four couldn't perform with a second passenger.

Plus, the door tag read 5 passengers. I didn't realize Japanese folks were that much smaller than we are...

-- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:53:24 -0800, Steven Goodman puked:

At least wait for the Cobra, SVT or convertible.

-- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

Lice diet keeps you smarr!

Lefinish King

there is a reason anorexic short people buy honda's. They feel fat in them. Charles

I think it was a Cobra? The new Mustang had a little Cobra logo the side. But it was subtle, nothing obvious.

It's a very acceptable first-run attempt at bringing back a real Mustang....but there's a lot of minor annoyances and irritating little design flaws that need to be overcome...you've got to take a good look at one to see what I mean, AND to judge for yourself.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:45:11 -0500, "ElectroPig" puked:

Like what?

Personally I don't like the second set of lights in the grille. I think just one set looks cleaner. I haven't driven one, or even sat in one for that matter so I'd be interested in knowing what you think is wrong with it.

-- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:01:20 -0800, Steven Goodman puked:

I wasn't aware that they were out yet. Then again, I don't know if I've seen a GT either.

-- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

Well, rear-view is severely obstructed. I'm 5'5", and I figure the car was design for 6'6" or better...unfortunately, most people are NOT 6'6.

That donut spare tire is an incredible bitch, IMHO....everyone KNOWS that we all HATE donut spares...why didn't they design it with a REAL SPARE?! Sheeeeesh...

The rear split-folddowns (a la REAL Mustangs of yore) were a very nice addition, BUT they have a chintzy little cloth pull on them, which I'm sure will wear out over time...BAD DESIGN.

The interior seems a LOT too plasticy in the "bone stock" '05 'Stang, and the GT's all seem to have leather-only, while I much prefer cloth. NO brochures, so I don't know if cloth IS an option for GT's or not.

The V6's have a generous amount of work room in the engine compartment, but I didn't pop the hood on the GT, since I don't like fastbacks, and I simply wasn't that interested at the time. (That and I was looking for a blower motor relay for an '85 Berlinetta, and it was gonna be a long, cold ride back from Windsor...if you know anyone with one on hand, have him email snipped-for-privacy@-SpAmBlOk-hotmail.com ASAP! I've nothing against hard nipples...but I MUCH PREFER to have bought a few rounds of drinks beforehand...at least then they're on someone else so you can enjoy them! ;)

I agree...the front grill doesn't look quite right either...but not so much because of the second light set...it was more because about 1/5 of either side of the grill was basically moulded as closed cells, while the center 3/5 was moulded as OPEN cells. It just doesn't look balanced...take a look at it for yourself and you'll see what I mean, I'm sure.

Little details such as...painting the front frame (ie: rad cradle) black so it doesn't show through the grill quite so badly, would also have been a nice touch...

The trunk lid on the fastback was a little shorter than I cared for, but it was necessitated by the fastback design, so I guess they made do with what they had to work with...but that tiny little spare INSIDE the trunk just sucks ass, regardless...

The console is too short, and placed too far back for you to feel comfortable resting your arm on it. Why?! Easy...because they took up about 1/3 of the console space with poorly thought out cupholders. Design the cupholders into the dash...make them pull-outs....don't waste console space for that garbage!!!

NO ASHTRAYS!!! Where am I gonna put my change when I quit smoking?!?! (I never use them in my cars anyway, unless it rains...but even non-smokers would still be able to use them if they were placed properly...put your garage door remote in 'em...spare key for your gas cap, maybe?! Spare fuses?! Whatever...they need ashtrays...)

The longer you spend looking at the new Mustang, the more flaws and annoyances you'll find...but ONLY if you HAD a REAL Mustang before...and I have to admit that I'm comparing the new Mustang to the build quality I've gotten used to with my Camaros over the years, as well as the inevitable comparison to my '67 Coupe (Hi-Po 289, Pony interior with the "roll-top" console) and my '73 Grande (Factory 351-400-modified....didn't find THAT out until after I sold it, though... :( Apparently, it was quite rare...)

Next time you're out and about...take a look at the only viable alternative to the Camaro...you'll like a lot....you'll hate a little...you might be able to tolerate the whole...

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:46:39 -0500, "ElectroPig" puked:

I think the show car had the grille recessed further back. From what I saw, it looked like it was almost level with the front of the hood.

I had a '68 fastback with a 289. The car was a rattletrap, but it looked sharp and ran good.

You make a lot of points in your post. I don't know if I'm as picky because I could, in retrospect, easily surpass that list with design flaws in my 00 SS ragtop. (hump in passenger floor, minute trunk, silly second cup holder, joke back seat, undersized brakes...)

-- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

Yeah...but those squeaks and rattles did add something to the way you felt when you drove that lil' baby, too, didn't they?! ;)

Perhaps, but you're also talking from experience...I'm talking about a

10-minute perusal in a dealer's showroom...I've never even heard the new 'Stang RUN or taken one for a test run, or had any long-term exposure to one in flight.

I've had my complaints about my 'Berlinetta, too, over the years, but basically, it's always been a reliable little ride with enough snot under the hood to get me where I wanna go as quickly as I need to get there. Woulda been nice with a 350, but I'm satisfied enough with the performance of the 305 for what I use her for. ;)