1979-1993
(http://www.english.ilstu.edu/students/bchall2/mustang/images/1989-mustang.jpg)
(http://www.thenewsherald.com/images/20040418/9336_512.jpg)
(http://www.edmunds.com/media/reviews/generations/ford.mustang/79-93.ford.mustang.500.jpg)
(http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/87-93/89/Interior.jpg)
1994-1998
(http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/94-98/94/1994Cobra.jpg)
(http://www.4wheelz.net/ford/new/mustang/ford_mustang_1994.jpg)
(http://www.edmunds.com/media/reviews/generations/ford.mustang/94-98.ford.mustang.500.jpg)
(http://www.fastcoolcars.com/images/interior/back_interior_mustang98gt.jpg)
1999-2004
(http://www.elepent.com/photos/ford/mach1.jpg)
(http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/images/ford/2003cobra_2.jpg)
(http://www.parkwayfordlincoln.nb.ca/library/images/org/6321/USED%20SPECIALS%202002%20MUSTANG%20GT.jpg)
(http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/01images/01bullitt_int.jpg)
2005+
(http://www.automarketreview.com/graphics/reviews/fordmustanginterior.jpg)
(http://www.marigold.net/library/images/org/6281/2005%20MUSTANG%2001-resized.jpg)
(http://www.autointell-news.com/News-2005/Feb-2005/Feb-2005-3/ford-mustang-convertible-115.jpg)
my personal fav. of the older ones ...would have to be the '66 fastback...and '89 hatchback...beautiful cars..
By far the 2005 version.
1979-1993, though I don't care for the pre-1987 models.
(http://www.thenewsherald.com/images/20040418/9336_512.jpg)
They sold that as a Mustang? Sexy! ;)
I'm beginning to like the new one more and more, but currently the last gen was my favorite. Give it a month, maybe I'll switch.
I like the 1994-2004 versions for modern styling that doesn't look boxy, but still looks like a Mustang. I prefer the 1999-2004 better because they sharpened up the styling.
Of course the 2005 is a much better car, but I don't care for the boxy styling and high beltline. It doesn't take an idiot to figure out that a flat front end will create more drag. :rolleyes:
It is damn sexy though, and leagues away from the others dynamically.
(http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artman/uploads/44lime_green_ad-med.jpg)
(http://cyd125.free.fr/nfsu/caisses/ford_mustang_gt_2005_01_s.jpg)
(http://img184.echo.cx/img184/5271/gt4018a0hl.jpg)
The new ones by FAR. The pick that Raza re-posting is just utterly hideous. How Ford could have the gaul to call that a Mustang is beyond me. Thunderbird is more like it.
QuoteThe new ones by FAR. The pick that Raza re-posting is just utterly hideous. How Ford could have the gaul to call that a Mustang is beyond me. Thunderbird is more like it.
i know what you mean....it makes me sick to think that they put the wonderful name of mustang on that POS
QuoteQuoteThe new ones by FAR. The pick that Raza re-posting is just utterly hideous. How Ford could have the gaul to call that a Mustang is beyond me. Thunderbird is more like it.
i know what you mean....it makes me sick to think that they put the wonderful name of mustang on that POS
(http://hem.passagen.se/melleandy/images/Ford%20Probe.jpg)
That was almost a Stang once.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe new ones by FAR. The pick that Raza re-posting is just utterly hideous. How Ford could have the gaul to call that a Mustang is beyond me. Thunderbird is more like it.
i know what you mean....it makes me sick to think that they put the wonderful name of mustang on that POS
(http://hem.passagen.se/melleandy/images/Ford%20Probe.jpg)
That was almost a Stang once.
i knew that...glad they didnt call it a mustang...imagin what the stang would look like if todays version was based off THAT!
I like the '05 best, with a tie with the 87-93 Fox body and Last gen for looks.
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
QuoteI like the '05 best, with a tie with the 87-93 Fox body and Last gen for looks.
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Are you saying you like the Mustang II?
The new Mustang is a sexy beast. Way more muscular than the others in this poll. Pure retro looks, great price, quality interior, V8!
QuoteThe new Mustang is a sexy beast. Way more muscular than the others in this poll. Pure retro looks, great price, quality interior, V8!
Yup :praise: Thats why I like it so much.
QuoteQuoteThe new Mustang is a sexy beast. Way more muscular than the others in this poll. Pure retro looks, great price, quality interior, V8!
Yup :praise: Thats why I like it so much.
to bad it weighs over 3000lbs....i think its closer to 3700lbs mabye a little under...or at least the GT is close to that weight....i agree i love the look of the new mustang...i think its the best one yet...but it needs to go on a diet for '06 and '07
QuoteQuoteI like the '05 best, with a tie with the 87-93 Fox body and Last gen for looks.
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Are you saying you like the Mustang II?
reading comprehension>raza
Re-read my post. Keyword "excluding"
QuoteQuoteQuoteI like the '05 best, with a tie with the 87-93 Fox body and Last gen for looks.
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Are you saying you like the Mustang II?
reading comprehension>raza
Re-read my post. Keyword "excluding"
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Meaning "Other than the early Fox, the Mustang II, and the SN95, everything made after 1967 are the worst", meaning "that all other Mustangs made after 1967 are the worst except for the Fox, the Mustang II, and the SN95."
Your post was fairly poorly worded.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the '05 best, with a tie with the 87-93 Fox body and Last gen for looks.
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Are you saying you like the Mustang II?
reading comprehension>raza
Re-read my post. Keyword "excluding"
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Meaning "Other than the early Fox, the Mustang II, and the SN95, everything made after 1967 are the worst", meaning "that all other Mustangs made after 1967 are the worst except for the Fox, the Mustang II, and the SN95."
Your post was fairly poorly worded.
Actually, to me that the post reads more like, "Except for the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, all of the Mustangs made after '67 are the worst, including the SN95"
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI like the '05 best, with a tie with the 87-93 Fox body and Last gen for looks.
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Are you saying you like the Mustang II?
reading comprehension>raza
Re-read my post. Keyword "excluding"
Excluding some of the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, the SN95 and everything after '67 are the worst.
Meaning "Other than the early Fox, the Mustang II, and the SN95, everything made after 1967 are the worst", meaning "that all other Mustangs made after 1967 are the worst except for the Fox, the Mustang II, and the SN95."
Your post was fairly poorly worded.
Actually, to me that the post reads more like, "Except for the early fox bodies and the Mustang II, all of the Mustangs made after '67 are the worst, including the SN95"
Okay.
^ :blink: :wacko: ^
Maybe so.
I meant to say the SN95 along with the mustangs made from 1967 to 1986 are the worst looking.
Everyone agrees that the Mustang II and the earlier fox bodied mustangs are the ugliest and worst performing mustangs; it's a no brainer. Not counting those two styles is wha tI meant (as you probably know....).
I really don't like the redesigned front end in 1967, aspecially the Shelby GT500s front end. I do however like the movie car "Eleanor" front end quite a bit. This is a '68 GT500 with the ugly front end.
(http://i4.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/63/50/03_12_sb.JPG)
Then came the bloated and heavy "Grande" versions. Not sporty at all. THis is a '69
(http://carad.ebayimg.com/i8/04/a/04/5d/ab/38_4.JPG)
In '70 they added a few gills next to the headlight and I'll admit these ones looked a bit better.
(http://i4.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/5e/b9/4b_1_b.JPG)
Then in '71 they ruind it again. This is a '71
(http://i14.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/59/bd/68_12_sb.JPG)
This is a '73. Still Ugly.
(http://i2.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/60/09/0a_1_b.JPG)
Then came the Mustang II. This is a '74 Ghia
(http://i19.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/60/35/93_12_b.JPG)
Then the '79 - '86 Cars, they changed the noses around a bit through this generation. THis is a '79
(http://i11.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/5e/59/71_1_b.JPG)
They got better as they neared '86. THis is an '86
(http://i1.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/5d/33/ec_12_sb.JPG)
This is an '85 SVO (Turbo 2.3L 4 banger, about as quick as the 5.0L of the time)
(http://i15.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/60/cc/06_1_b.JPG)
I actually like the pre-1986 Fox models, in modified form anyway.
QuoteMaybe so.
I meant to say the SN95 along with the mustangs made from 1967 to 1986 are the worst looking.
Everyone agrees that the Mustang II and the earlier fox bodied mustangs are the ugliest and worst performing mustangs; it's a no brainer. Not counting those two styles is wha tI meant (as you probably know....).
I really don't like the redesigned front end in 1967, aspecially the Shelby GT500s front end. I do however like the movie car "Eleanor" front end quite a bit. This is a '68 GT500 with the ugly front end.
(http://i4.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/63/50/03_12_sb.JPG)
Then came the bloated and heavy "Grande" versions. Not sporty at all. THis is a '69
(http://carad.ebayimg.com/i8/04/a/04/5d/ab/38_4.JPG)
In '70 they added a few gills next to the headlight and I'll admit these ones looked a bit better.
(http://i4.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/5e/b9/4b_1_b.JPG)
Then in '71 they ruind it again. This is a '71
(http://i14.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/59/bd/68_12_sb.JPG)
This is a '73. Still Ugly.
(http://i2.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/60/09/0a_1_b.JPG)
Then came the Mustang II. This is a '74 Ghia
(http://i19.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/60/35/93_12_b.JPG)
Then the '79 - '86 Cars, they changed the noses around a bit through this generation. THis is a '79
(http://i11.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/5e/59/71_1_b.JPG)
They got better as they neared '86. THis is an '86
(http://i1.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/5d/33/ec_12_sb.JPG)
This is an '85 SVO (Turbo 2.3L 4 banger, about as quick as the 5.0L of the time)
(http://i15.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/60/cc/06_1_b.JPG)
you confused me on the part about how you hate the GT500's front end but like eleanor...whats different ...i thought that they were the the same front end with the added lights and (fog lights...)....Eleanor is one sexy beast....
And for 109,000 you can get the base model..rated at 325HP
and for 139,000 you can own the performence model rated at...475HP
and for 189,000 you can get the super snake w/ vortech supercharger
rated at 725HPwish i could have at least the base model...
Link to the super snake!!!(725HP!!) (http://www.uniqueperformance.com/supersnakeGT500E.aspx)
I don't like this:
(http://i4.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/63/50/03_12_sb.JPG)
I do like this:
(http://www.auto-inter.net/tv/60sc/60sc.gif)
Completely different front facia, bumper and hood.
Same thing with the '65 and '66 and the '67+...the '67 got bigger and they changed the front end slightly, made it looks ugly.
QuoteI don't like this:
(http://i4.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/63/50/03_12_sb.JPG)
I do like this:
(http://www.auto-inter.net/tv/60sc/60sc.gif)
Completely different front facia, bumper and hood.
Same thing with the '65 and '66 and the '67+...the '67 got bigger and they changed the front end slightly, made it looks ugly.
i see....damn i want a eleanor
That 2nd mustang you posted, Run Away, is hot!
QuoteThat 2nd mustang you posted, Run Away, is hot!
Eleanor....:wub:
*I've seen "Gone In 60 Seconds" ~40 times....its the best action/car/driving movie out there....i love the driving scenes w/ eleanor in them :wub:
QuoteRun Away is hot!
Am i reading the above wrong???
sorry dave...i saw the opportunity and had to take it :lol:
QuoteQuoteRun Away is hot!
Am i reading the above wrong???
sorry dave...i saw the opportunity and had to take it :lol:
C'mon guys, you know what I meant :lol:
I though it was common knowledge?
I am loving the new GT500...If I can get over my need for a sunroof I might buy one.
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/682005164413.jpg)
I used to not like the GT's inner lights, but now I've gotten used to them. And what's this GT500 without giant foglights?
Hmm...what about a crazy low weight racer GT350 version?
QuoteI am loving the new GT500...If I can get over my need for a sunroof I might buy one.
I thought youre liquid at the moment :lol:
QuoteQuoteI am loving the new GT500...If I can get over my need for a sunroof I might buy one.
I thought youre liquid at the moment :lol:
Not liquid!
It's also not out yet. And a new car I can put on a finance or lease plan, so I don't need to be as liquid.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI am loving the new GT500...If I can get over my need for a sunroof I might buy one.
I thought youre liquid at the moment :lol:
Not liquid!
It's also not out yet. And a new car I can put on a finance or lease plan, so I don't need to be as liquid.
Then by all means get it!
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am loving the new GT500...If I can get over my need for a sunroof I might buy one.
I thought youre liquid at the moment :lol:
Not liquid!
It's also not out yet. And a new car I can put on a finance or lease plan, so I don't need to be as liquid.
Then by all means get it!
I've got a sunroof thing to deal with. I'd also have to find a way to get rid of the Passat.
All the power would make you forget about the sunroof :lol:
Meh, the Saab and Volkswagen both had (have) sunroofs, but I hardly noticed them. It's not like a convertible.
QuoteMeh, the Saab and Volkswagen both had (have) sunroofs, but I hardly noticed them. It's not like a convertible.
I use mine all the time. If the temp is above 10, and it's not raining (and I mean raining...it's open in the snow too) I'm using it.
Quote(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/682005164413.jpg)
I used to not like the GT's inner lights, but now I've gotten used to them. And what's this GT500 without giant foglights?
Hmm...what about a crazy low weight racer GT350 version?
They don't seem to be of an abnormal size to me.
QuoteQuote(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/682005164413.jpg)
I used to not like the GT's inner lights, but now I've gotten used to them. And what's this GT500 without giant foglights?
Hmm...what about a crazy low weight racer GT350 version?
They don't seem to be of an abnormal size to me.
That's what I was saying...they're too small.
QuoteQuoteQuote(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/682005164413.jpg)
I used to not like the GT's inner lights, but now I've gotten used to them. And what's this GT500 without giant foglights?
Hmm...what about a crazy low weight racer GT350 version?
They don't seem to be of an abnormal size to me.
That's what I was saying...they're too small.
I am having reading problems apparantly, I thought you said with instead of without.