CarSPIN Forums

(http://www.dragtimes.com/images/9076-1964-Ford-Mustang.jpg) 64'

(http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2000/all_ford/must6901.jpg)? ?69'

(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/258089~1971-Ford-Mustang-Boss-351-Posters.jpg)? ? ? 71'

(http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/ford/stangpics/74-78/77_CobraII_wht_1.jpg)? 74' Mustang 2

(http://www.moddedmustangs.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/history-of-the-ford-mustang-fox1.jpg)? ? ?79'

(http://www.dragtimes.com/images/4831-1987-Ford-Mustang.jpg)? ? 87'

(http://shnack.com/history/pics/1994FordMustangGT_large.jpg)? ? ?94'

(http://images.automotive.com/reviews/images/99mustang.jpg)? ? 99'

(http://www.fly-ford.com/images/2005Mustang/DSC03893.JPG)? ? 05'

'64 for me.

Quote from: Raghavan on May 11, 2007, 10:33:13 PM
'64 for me.

Ditto.

I like 67-68 better than 64 or 69

There's not that big of a difference between them is there? (67',68',69?)

'64, but as a hardtop.

Classic 64 for me!

Chevyguy, you dog! :lol: I got on here to post this very thread...you beat me to it.

But, anyway, I voted '05.

'87!

Quote from: heelntoe on May 12, 2007, 01:56:51 PM
'87!

I've never been that big of a fan of the 79' or the 87' bodystyles, but those 2 I posted look really nice.

Quote from: chevyguy06 on May 12, 2007, 03:38:31 PM
I've never been that big of a fan of the 79' or the 87' bodystyles, but those 2 I posted look really nice.

i chose them because they look the least like a mustang. :lol:
and the '87 you posted looks really nice.

64

Whoever voted for the 74' needs their eyes checked :P

that's a bad picture, i'm sure it looks pretty nice in person.

1974  :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

('67 for me)

Quote from: heelntoe on May 12, 2007, 03:48:25 PM
that's a bad picture, i'm sure it looks pretty nice in person.

It doesn't.....one of my Dad's friends has one....worst looking Mustang by far.

Quote from: chevyguy06 on May 12, 2007, 04:57:08 PM
It doesn't.....one of my Dad's friends has one....worst looking Mustang by far.

the only ones i've seen in person were the '69, '79 and '87 so i can't say about the others. :huh:

69

'66 Fastback for me.

There are four classic Mustangs:
The '65 fastback (these were officially named the "Mustang 2+2")
The '67 fastback
The '69 fastback
The '05 fastback

The '05 fastback is the Nethead here's pick because:
It returned the Mustang to its true DNA after wandering in the styling wilderness for thirty-seven years.
It has a chassis torsional rigidity of 6000 pounds per inch of deflection (I dunno how many degrees that would be, but probably no more than one degree of deflection).  Lessons learned from the twenty-eight GT500 test mules resulted in improvements to every '06 and later Mustang to increase the chassis rigidity to nearly 7500 pounds per inch of deflection.
Every car engine Ford has ever built will fit in the engine compartment without fender bashin' or firewall Sawzallin'--and that includes the GT500's DOHC 5.4; the 427 pushrodder of NASCAR, Cobra, and Ford GT fame; the SOHC 427; the Boss 429; the SOHC 3-valve 6.8 V10; and even the Aston Martin Vanquish 6.0 V12.
It has the roomiest interior of any Mustang ever built, and it's even roomier with the rear seat folded down,
It offers 500-watt and 1000-watt audio.
It offers 5-speed automatics or 5-speed manuals.
It has 4-wheel disc brakes with optional ABS.
It is the basis for the GT500, the GT500 KR, and the GT500 Super Snake--each with more horsepower and torque than was ever available in any previous Shelby versions of the early Mustangs.
It has a 5-star frontal crash rating.
It is tied with the Mazda RX-8 for third place as the most rollover-resistant vehicle sold in the US--behind the Mazda MX-5 and the BMW Z4--according to the NHTSA.
The GT comes standard with an all-aluminum, fuel-injected, variable-intake-timing, SOHC, 3-valve V8 that cranks out 300 HP on regular unleaded.
Twenty-five (maybe more by now) different companies offer tuner Mustangs with horsepower ranging from a little more than stock to 900 horsepower.
Ford, Steeda, Kenny Brown, and Miller Motorsports Park offer complete, fully-assembled roadracing versions.
It's still The One :ohyeah:

   

64.

Quote from: Nethead on May 12, 2007, 11:59:46 PM
There are four classic Mustangs:
The '65 fastback (these were officially named the "Mustang 2+2")
The '67 fastback
The '69 fastback
The '05 fastback

What about '64-1/2?

I like '64.2, myself.

Quote from: omicron on May 13, 2007, 01:07:23 PM
I like '64.2, myself.

:praise:

1. 1969
2. 2005
3. 1964
4. 1996

Quote from: chevyguy06 on May 12, 2007, 04:57:08 PM
It doesn't.....one of my Dad's friends has one....worst looking Mustang by far.

Actually my 74 was a very decent car.  It got me through 7 years of college and a year of career.  Traded it in with 247,000 miles on the clock.

Quote from: etypeJohn on May 14, 2007, 09:00:12 AM
Actually my 74 was a very decent car. It got me through 7 years of college and a year of career. Traded it in with 247,000 miles on the clock.

It may be a good car, but IMO it's very ugly.

It's funny that I voted '69 here, but '90 with my dollars when I bought this, built the engine, got a careless and reckless in it, had a lot of fun, had a lot fo heartache and sold it after two years.

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y58/MidnightDave/114-1427_IMG.jpg)

'69 for me. It also has the my favorite interior (especially the dash) of any Mustang.

Quote from: chevyguy06 on May 14, 2007, 09:40:32 AM
It may be a good car, but IMO it's very ugly.

They look better in the flesh than in pictures.? Also, you are looking at a Cobra, which was an ugly decal and paint option.  Ford must have done something right, they sold about 400,000 the first year.

Quote from: etypeJohn on May 16, 2007, 06:08:47 AM
They look better in the flesh than in pictures.

I disagree, but it's not as ugly as people want to believe.

SVO hatchback.

Quote from: omicron on May 13, 2007, 01:07:23 PM
I like '64.2, myself.

:evildude:

Interesting to see the decline of the Mustang from the 70s to the late 90s.

I may be the lone wolf here, but my favorite Mustang body style was the 94-98.  In my personal opinion, it had the best lines.  Curvey and sexy, especially in the Cobra convertible package.  I still have a 96, but Randy is buying it for his soon to be wife as a present.  What one was your favorite?

Quick question....why didn't you post this in the Mustang thread?

Quote from: chevyguy06 on May 22, 2007, 05:39:16 PM
Quick question....why didn't you post this in the Mustang thread?

There is a Mustang thread?  I posted here because this forum area is "then and now" and I thought this was the most appropriate place.  I may have been wrong!! 

But answer the darned question-  What is you favorite one?  :lol:

I like that one too. Modern styling that still looks like a Mustang.

I don't care for the newest Mustang. It's too boxy. It's like it's trying too hard to look old. It reminds me of a Mustang II.

Quote from: hounddog on May 22, 2007, 06:31:46 PM
There is a Mustang thread? I posted here because this forum area is "then and now" and I thought this was the most appropriate place. I may have been wrong!!

But answer the darned question- What is you favorite one? :lol:

There's a Then vs. Now Mustang thread, yes.

Quote from: chevyguy06 on May 22, 2007, 08:15:35 PM
There's a Then vs. Now Mustang thread, yes.

I missed it.  Let the forum gods move this then!

Quote from: hounddog on May 22, 2007, 05:06:31 PM
I may be the lone wolf here, but my favorite Mustang body style was the 94-98.? In my personal opinion, it had the best lines.? Curvey and sexy, especially in the Cobra convertible package.? I still have a 96, but Randy is buying it for his soon to be wife as a present.? What one was your favorite?

I love that body style.  I had a '96 GTS that I modded to nearly 400 hp.  If I could actually find one with low mileage I would get one again.  Unfortunately they all have 120 K or more.  It sucks.  The hood on the Cobra is so badass.

Quote from: Tave on May 13, 2007, 01:05:46 PM
What about '64-1/2?

Tave:  TaveDude, the '64-1/2 Mustang was the very first production Mustang, of course, which will always make it special for that reason alone.  Why is it not one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?
A.  It had the Thunderbird roofline instead of the '65s much-more-aerodynamic and much-better-looking fastback roofline
B.  It had a nasty chromed POS banana on the "C" scoops on each side
C.  The max engine available was a fairly mild four-barreled, hydraulic-liftered 260 V8, whereas the '65 offered a four-barreled, solid-liftered 289 V8--which Shelby upped to 306 HP in the street G.T. 350s and upped to 350 HP in the G.T. 350Rs,  which required four two-barreled Weber carbs as on the Ford GT.  In fact, the G.T. 350R may have had the identical engine as the Ford GT except for the exhaust headers.

I saw a Mustang II in the flesh the other day.  It ain't pretty.

I think the previous generation Mustangs look the best as a convertible and in Rousch form.  Talk about a head turner!  Either that or a previous generation Mustang convertible with the mag wheels and in the grey/green color.

Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9259.msg472507#msg472507 date=1181250313
I saw a Mustang II in the flesh the other day.? It ain't pretty.

I keep seeing the same one driving around on my streets here. It looks like it needs new rear springs, and sounds like it needs new mufflers. I think I need to race them for pinks, take their car, and sell it to some poor sap on E-bay.

'70 for me (I've had 3 of them, including a BOSS302). Same basic body as the '69, but with single headlights, and a flat taillight section.

(http://www.4speedtoploaders.com/images/Brian%20Ferrin.jpg)

(http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/download/wallpaper/70boss_yellow640.jpg)

After that it's the 2005, then the '75 Mustang II. Yes, I love those lightweight V8 powered cars. I'll take one just like this:

(http://www.mustangii.net/images/ontheroad/cobraii_from_calendar.jpg)

Or build a convertible like this:

(http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/3205531d.jpg)

Quote from: Nethead on June 07, 2007, 02:34:53 PM
C.? The max engine available was a fairly mild four-barreled, hydraulic-liftered 260 V8, whereas the '65 offered a four-barreled, solid-liftered 289 V8--which Shelby upped to 306 HP in the street G.T. 350s and upped to 350 HP in the G.T. 350Rs,? which required four two-barreled Weber carbs as on the Ford GT.? In fact, the G.T. 350R may have had the identical engine as the Ford GT except for the exhaust headers.

A few years ago some dude was selling his '66 on a GM lot in my hometown. It had the 289, a new blue paint job, and a new, matching blue interior. He obviously spent some serious dough on the thing, and it was just stunning. If I'd of had my shit together and saved some money I could have been driving that thing around Phoenix; his asking price was very reasonable.

But instead I was spending like a madman and my dreams of owning a '64-'66 went down the shitter. C'est la vie.

Quote from: Raza  on June 07, 2007, 03:05:13 PM
I saw a Mustang II in the flesh the other day. 

My condolences.

Chris, I was in Salida, CO last week and saw a dude with a rusty number II. He also had a beautiful '40s Chevy, so maybe he plans on fixin 'er up.