2005 mustang convertible, v6 or v8 ?

Plus the V8 sounds cool ! However, I am wondering about the premium that I might have to pay for the V8.

Three of the four vehicles that I own are standards. 1997 Honda Civic EX 5 spd (daughter), 2003 F150 V6 5 spd (son), 2005 Honda Civic EX SE 5 spd (wife). All of my motorcycles were standards including the Honda Valkyrie I sold last Nov.

Lynn

Reply to
Lynn
Loading thread data ...

The only way you will find out about your premium is if you shop around for an insurer. If you have a good driving record and you are an elderly fellow than your premium should be low regaurdless of what you drive. But down't quote me on this, the only way to find out is by shopping around for the right car insurance company. Many of whom will be scum, the trick is to find out who's honest and who aint...

Reply to
eastwardbound2003

Re: 2005 mustang convertible, v6 or v8 ? Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2005, 10:41pm (EST-3) From: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

The only way you will find out about your premium is if you shop around for an insurer. If you have a good driving record and you are an elderly fellow than your premium should be low regaurdless of what you drive. But down't quote me on this, the only way to find out is by shopping around for the right car insurance company. Many of whom will be scum, the trick is to find out who's honest and who aint...

Reply to
Eric Toline

Reply to
Lynn

wow standard can u shift and chew bubblegum???

hurc ast

Reply to
hurricane 575

Are the voices in your head bothering you again ?

Lynn

Reply to
Lynn

lmfao voices lmfao you the one buying the ford bwhahahahaha

hurc ast

Reply to
hurricane 575

Early 1965 Mustangs (the somewhat mislabled 64 1/2) got the

170 cid six cylinder instead of the 200. And early V-8s were 260's (164 horsepower?). Later they added the 200 six and 289 V-8s in two different flavors from Ford, and Shelby had one with even more power.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

At least for me, the insurance on my 2001 Mustang GT was very high. I am 52 years old and haven't had a ticket in at least 10 years. What really surpriced me is that the insurance on my 2004 Thunderbird was much lower. Makes no sense to me.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

The dudes who drive Mustangs probably drive less safely than those who drive Thunderbirds.

And people are more apt to steal mustangs.

Both raise insurance rates.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Mislabeled by whom? At introduction in April 1964, Ford called its new car the 1964 1/2 Mustang but they did wear 1965 VINs. My PA title lists my first year Mustang as a 1964, not a 1965, as does NADA. The Mustang was a derivative of the Falcon. The 200 CID six was first used in the 1962 Falcon and the 260 V8 was first used in the 1963 1/2 Falcon Sprint and convertible that were introduced in April of that year. The Shelby Mustang came several years later.

I was working at Ford in those days, the first high performance Mustang we built was the 1966 T5 fastback. R Code with the 427, ONLY 2 WERE MANUFACTURED and exported to West Germany I know one was destroyed but the other may still exist. ;)

mike hunt

"C. E. White" wrote:

Reply to
MikeHunt2

In 1986 I bought a new Escort EXP,a cute, fun car. My insurance company wanted to charge me nearly triple the rate I was paying on my old car, a 1978 Mustang II,

4cyl. Their assertion was that it qualified as a sports car because it was a 2 seater with a stick shift!! Granted, I was looking for more coverage as I only carried liability and a couple of add ons on the old car, but that was way out of line. I dropped State Farm faster than a cheating girlfriend.
Reply to
Tom Adkins

I am sure you are correct. However, both cars were driven by the same person and parked in the same low risk area. It seems to me the insurance company should take this into consideration.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

I think they look at the crash rates, cost of repairs, etc., for the car and use this as a base rate. They don't look at the characteristics, driving record, etc., of the person driving the car because they can make more money if they don't. Plus, the main driver is not the only driver of the car.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

All true, but everything I read says the early Mustangs (64

1/2 or early 65 whcih ever you prefer) used the 170 cid six and not the 200 cid six. See
formatting link
. I did say"somewhat" mislabeled in reference to 64 and 1/2. Mustang"experts" argue this point all the time. As I recall (I wasonly 11), Ford did refer to the Mustang as a 1965 Model.Since the VIN indicated that it was a 1965 model, I say itwas a 1965 Model.

The Shelby version did not appear "several" years later. The GT350 was introduced in Janruary of 1965....I think that qualifies as 8 Months later, not several years.

I don't know about the 427 Mustangs.

formatting link
says thefollowing on the subject: "Urban legend: 427 Mystery Solved?!

"If Kevin Marti has all the facts from Ford, then no W-Code

427 Mustangs were built. According to his new book, Mustang by the Numbers 1967-1973 [copyright 1999 Kevin Marti, El Mirage, AZ (623) 935-2558], which takes information from Ford?s computer archives, the W-Code did not exist?at least where the Mustang is concerned. There is, however, a caveat?the ?72 options list does not show the rear deck spoiler as an option, even though it was shown in 1971 and 1973. Marti even backs up the what-if theory: ?Ford might have built them in such small numbers that they never showed up as a Code, kind of like the ?67 Shelbys that had an S engine code (390) and were, in fact, packing the 428.? So, either they are or they aren?t, but so far we still have no graphic proof one way or the other."

Other 427 References:

formatting link
does show the427 as an option in 1968.http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/mustang_vin.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/~mustangs68/engcode.html I do think a big block would have been a tght fit in a 1965 engine compartment. I've never seen any listing for "R" Code Mustangs prior to 1968. And then the "R" code was for the

428, not the 427. I suppose with a lot of hammering and special parts a 427 could have been shoehorned into a 1965 Mustang, but I am not sure I'd call that "manufactured."

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

"C. E. White" wrote in part:

...They might just raise the rates on your T-bird, seeing as you drive a Mustang. :-)

-- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Reply to
Jim Chinnis

Not any more. My left knee started giving up on me, so the Mustang (with a 5 Speed Manual) had to go.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

That is apples and pears. Ford could not call the '63 1/2 Falcon and the '64 1/4 Mustang '64s or '65s. Back then new model year vehicles were introduced in September of the prior year. It is only recently that franchise laws were changed to allow manufactures to introduce new models prior to four month before the beginning of the calendar year. The larger 6 and V8 engines were a free standing options on both the regular Falcons and the Mustang. Although the Sprint had the 260 CID V8 one could order a 289 V8 in the Sprint, or a 200 CID 6 or a 260 in the Falcon Futura.

Ford built those two, 'R' Code, race ready cars with the 427, that is why they were 'manufactured by Ford.' The first Shelbys were regular Mustangs that were modified by Carol Shelby. The purpose of the conversion was an effort to see if they could build a car that could run with the Corvette, but ford only allowed him to spend $1,500. He modified the body, interior, suspension and engines. By the way they were built on the same chassis and sold by select Ford dealers, not Shelby. It was later that Ford manufactured generic Shelbys, but not the 350 or

500 GTs.

mike hunt

"C. E. White" wrote:

Reply to
MikeHunt2

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.