• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

First Drive: 2005 Ford Mustang

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why does Ford put independent rear suspension into the Explorer, but not the Mustang. Someone at Ford needs to have their head examined.

IRS is reserved for the Cobra...and besides it's cheaper that way.

That's BS. A sports car should have IRS standard. I would get it if it had an IRS.


The Mustang has NEVER been a sports car. Mustangs have for the most part been "straight-line" machines. And the SRA appeases the "drag" crowd.

😕

I could see someone debating its level of sportscar-ness...but what is it if its not a sports car, oh wise one?
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why does Ford put independent rear suspension into the Explorer, but not the Mustang. Someone at Ford needs to have their head examined.

IRS is reserved for the Cobra...and besides it's cheaper that way.

That's BS. A sports car should have IRS standard. I would get it if it had an IRS.


The Mustang has NEVER been a sports car. Mustangs have for the most part been "straight-line" machines. And the SRA appeases the "drag" crowd.

It's never been a sports car BECAUSE Ford never put an independent rear suspension in it, except for special models, not the other way around. The drag strip argument is a lame excuse. They should design what's best for everyday buyer in stock form, not for who is gonna mod it. Ford's responsibility is to build the best car when it's stock, not make it cheap to mod.
Don't you think Ford is in control of it's own products?

If having IRS means "sports car", and the Mustang has never had IRS, it means that Ford doesen't want the Mustang to = "sports car".

You're the one that is looking at it backwards.
 
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why does Ford put independent rear suspension into the Explorer, but not the Mustang. Someone at Ford needs to have their head examined.

IRS is reserved for the Cobra...and besides it's cheaper that way.

That's BS. A sports car should have IRS standard. I would get it if it had an IRS.


The Mustang has NEVER been a sports car. Mustangs have for the most part been "straight-line" machines. And the SRA appeases the "drag" crowd.

It's never been a sports car BECAUSE Ford never put an independent rear suspension in it, except for special models, not the other way around. The drag strip argument is a lame excuse. They should design what's best for everyday buyer in stock form, not for who is gonna mod it. Ford's responsibility is to build the best car when it's stock, not make it cheap to mod.
Don't you think Ford is in control of it's own products?

If having IRS means "sports car", and the Mustang has never had IRS, it means that Ford doesen't want the Mustang to = "sports car".

You're the one that is looking at it backwards.

Then why does Ford put IRS on the top end Mustang models?
If Ford wants it to be a straight line machine, they would keep SRA for all models.
The point is they want it to be a sports car, but want to save money.
 
Suspension is MacPherson struts in front and a live axle with coil springs in the rear. Surely there will be many of you decrying Ford?s use of a live rear axle in the 21st century. Consider, though, that Mustang engineers went this route because they claim they can tune the suspension to be better than some independent setups, as well as because an axle gives the Mustang better drag-strip-launch characteristics than does an independent setup. (You must love that last qualifier of pony-car character.) It also helps that a live axle is cheaper, keeping the car?s MSRP down. ?We saved $300 a car, and that?s just materials,? Thai-Tang said. ?That doesn?t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling.

http://autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=7595
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Suspension is MacPherson struts in front and a live axle with coil springs in the rear. Surely there will be many of you decrying Ford?s use of a live rear axle in the 21st century. Consider, though, that Mustang engineers went this route because they claim they can tune the suspension to be better than some independent setups, as well as because an axle gives the Mustang better drag-strip-launch characteristics than does an independent setup. (You must love that last qualifier of pony-car character.) It also helps that a live axle is cheaper, keeping the car?s MSRP down. ?We saved $300 a car, and that?s just materials,? Thai-Tang said. ?That doesn?t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling.

http://autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=7595


Nissan went through the same thing with Maxima rear beam setup from 1995 to 2003. It had some characteristics better than an IRS, but ultimately the IRS replaced it, because overall it's a better setup for a sporty car. And Maxima is an FWD family car, where rear suspension doesn't even matter all that much. Mustang is an RWD sports car. It should have an IRS. $300 would have been worth it to have an IRS.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Suspension is MacPherson struts in front and a live axle with coil springs in the rear. Surely there will be many of you decrying Ford?s use of a live rear axle in the 21st century. Consider, though, that Mustang engineers went this route because they claim they can tune the suspension to be better than some independent setups, as well as because an axle gives the Mustang better drag-strip-launch characteristics than does an independent setup. (You must love that last qualifier of pony-car character.) It also helps that a live axle is cheaper, keeping the car?s MSRP down. ?We saved $300 a car, and that?s just materials,? Thai-Tang said. ?That doesn?t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling.

http://autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=7595


Nissan went through the same thing with Maxima rear beam setup from 1995 to 2003. It had some characteristics better than an IRS, but ultimately the IRS replaced it, because overall it's a better setup for a sporty car. And Maxima is an FWD family car, where rear suspension doesn't even matter all that much. Mustang is an RWD sports car. It should have an IRS. $300 would have been worth it to have an IRS.

Apparently not to ford.
I think that thing is ugly as sin. Two huge ass ugly inner lights and the rear is just as ugly.
 
Being a lifelong Mustang guy, and I realize I'm in the minority, but I still think the new style is one of the ugliest Mustangs I've ever seen. Performance looks good though.

It's cool though, because all you young guys think my Mustang style is ugly, so it all work out in the end. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Being a lifelong Mustang guy, and I realize I'm in the minority, but I still think the new style is one of the ugliest Mustangs I've ever seen. Performance looks good though.

It's cool though, because all you young guys think my Mustang style is ugly, so it all work out in the end. 😉

What's your second ugliest pick? Just curious
 
Originally posted by: JoeKing
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Being a lifelong Mustang guy, and I realize I'm in the minority, but I still think the new style is one of the ugliest Mustangs I've ever seen. Performance looks good though.

It's cool though, because all you young guys think my Mustang style is ugly, so it all work out in the end. 😉

What's your second ugliest pick? Just curious

Mustang II. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: JoeKing
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Being a lifelong Mustang guy, and I realize I'm in the minority, but I still think the new style is one of the ugliest Mustangs I've ever seen. Performance looks good though.

It's cool though, because all you young guys think my Mustang style is ugly, so it all work out in the end. 😉

What's your second ugliest pick? Just curious

Mustang II. 😉

lol that makes sense.

Ok and how about your favorite design?
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Suspension is MacPherson struts in front and a live axle with coil springs in the rear. Surely there will be many of you decrying Ford?s use of a live rear axle in the 21st century. Consider, though, that Mustang engineers went this route because they claim they can tune the suspension to be better than some independent setups, as well as because an axle gives the Mustang better drag-strip-launch characteristics than does an independent setup. (You must love that last qualifier of pony-car character.) It also helps that a live axle is cheaper, keeping the car?s MSRP down. ?We saved $300 a car, and that?s just materials,? Thai-Tang said. ?That doesn?t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling.

http://autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=7595


Nissan went through the same thing with Maxima rear beam setup from 1995 to 2003. It had some characteristics better than an IRS, but ultimately the IRS replaced it, because overall it's a better setup for a sporty car. And Maxima is an FWD family car, where rear suspension doesn't even matter all that much. Mustang is an RWD sports car. It should have an IRS. $300 would have been worth it to have an IRS.

I would imagine it is a lot easier and cheaper to build a IRS that sees 0ft-lbs of torque then one that sees 315ft-lbs 🙂. But I agree it should have a IRS and hopefully Ford's bean counters will come to their senses in a year or two and put one in the GT if nothing else as an options.

 
Originally posted by: JoeKing
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: JoeKing
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Being a lifelong Mustang guy, and I realize I'm in the minority, but I still think the new style is one of the ugliest Mustangs I've ever seen. Performance looks good though.

It's cool though, because all you young guys think my Mustang style is ugly, so it all work out in the end. 😉

What's your second ugliest pick? Just curious

Mustang II. 😉

lol that makes sense.

Ok and how about your favorite design?


Actually, now that I think about it, I think the Mustang II was the worst...the 2005 is no where near that bad...I just don't like it. As for my favorite..that's tough. I've always liked the newer styles over some of the older ones...generally. There are a few classics I really liked, but I've always sort of liked the newer designs more. I think one of the reasons I don't like the new Mustang is the retro look. I wish they had still done a radical re-design, but not one that looked towards the past, but more toward the future. I generally hate retro restyles as a rule.

I do realize however that most Mustang fans prefer the older ones, so the move makes sense I guess.

I'll have to give it more thought, but the favorite that comes to mind first is the Saleen S351, and the fox bodies. I'm probably a tad biased towards the fox body since I own a '92 (last year with forged pistons), and I realize most of the younger generation don't like the styling. When I was growing up though, they were one of THE cars to have, and the fox body was very popular for many years. It was cheap, and you could do a ton of stuff to them. They also last forever. I do realize they aren't regarded highly on their styling, but they will always be one of my favorites.

I guess it boils down to I wish the Mustang would have made a forward leap in design, like it had been doing, instead of a look back...

I know I'm in the minority and that's fine. At least now that there aren't many fox bodies on the road now, mine starts to stand out from all the newer cars nowadays that all seem to look the same.

The Saleen S351 is probably what I consider the ultimate Mustang. It handles, has tons of HP from the S/C 351W, and looks great.

Saleen S351 #1

Saleen S351 #2

Saleen S351 #3



🙂
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
That Saleen has a 351 engine in it?

It's a Supercharged 351W...~500HP.

Here are the specs for the 2000, the one I linked is a 1997, but the powertrain is identical IIRC.

Specs

Saleen S351 Specs

Engine

* 351 cubic inch (5.8L)
* Saleen Centrifugal Supercharged OHV 90 degree V-8
* Horsopower: 495 @ 5400 rpm
* Torque: 490 feet pounds @ 3500 rpm

Drivetrain

* Transmission:
Saleen Quick Ratio 6-speed manual transmission
* Driveshaft:
8.8" differential 3.27:1 ratio Saleen driveshaft
Optional: 8.8" differential 3.55:1 or 3.08:1 ratio driveshaft

Suspension

* Front:
Hybrid MacPherson struts with Saleens Racecraft system
* Rear:
Live axle four bar link with Saleen Racecraft variable rate coil-springs on boxed lower trailing arms

Brakes

* Power 4-wheel ABS disc brakes
Front: Saleen 13.0" grooved disc with 4-piston calipers
Rear: 10.5" disc with 4 piston calipers

Wheels

* Saleen five spoke alloy wheels
Front and Rear 18" x 9"
Optional: Rear 18" x 10"

Tires

* Pirelli P7000
Front: P255/35 ZR-18
Rear: P265/35 ZR-18
* Optional:
Pirelli PZero
Front: P265/35 ZR-18
Rear: P295/35 ZR-18

Performance

* 1/4 Mile: 12.7 secs @122.0 MPH
* 0-60: 4.5
* Top Speed: 172
* Lateral Acceleration: 0.93g
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: NFS4
Suspension is MacPherson struts in front and a live axle with coil springs in the rear. Surely there will be many of you decrying Ford?s use of a live rear axle in the 21st century. Consider, though, that Mustang engineers went this route because they claim they can tune the suspension to be better than some independent setups, as well as because an axle gives the Mustang better drag-strip-launch characteristics than does an independent setup. (You must love that last qualifier of pony-car character.) It also helps that a live axle is cheaper, keeping the car?s MSRP down. ?We saved $300 a car, and that?s just materials,? Thai-Tang said. ?That doesn?t include design, engineering and development, prototyping and tooling.

http://autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=7595


Nissan went through the same thing with Maxima rear beam setup from 1995 to 2003. It had some characteristics better than an IRS, but ultimately the IRS replaced it, because overall it's a better setup for a sporty car. And Maxima is an FWD family car, where rear suspension doesn't even matter all that much. Mustang is an RWD sports car. It should have an IRS. $300 would have been worth it to have an IRS.

Actually IRS makes much more impact to the Maxima owners than it twould do hte Mustang owners.

Maxima owners would wwant better ride over bumps and get rid of all the bump steer issues our beam setup had..to give a more compliant ride.

Mustang on the hand...ride issue isn't a big deal as much as getting out of the hole quicker.
 
It's about time Ford came up with something in it's car line that generated some buzz. They did very well @ the price point they're bringing in the new Mustang @.

Saw some pics of the solid rear axle setup, it's a very sophisticated system.

 
LEt the flame wars begin...I got to drive the 2005 mustang V6. We were testing out the instrument clusters to make sure the code works right. Car handled well, and i liked to drive it as a manual but there were some things i just didnt like
First off, why even have a back seat if you cant have anyone in there? For me to have my feet comfortable, 5'10 man...i needed to remove all room from the back. Yes i know, its a sports car, but still. The console in the center cant be put in a comfortable position as an arm rest. There was a ding in the side panel where the gas tank door snaps and hits the car. There were numerous things that i just didnt like about it. I could go on about it, but I cant. I love my buddies cobra though, not sure which year it was.

 
i wouldnt mind owning one of these ponies. the GT only though. no point buying a stang if you gonna buy the 200hp base V6 one
 
Back
Top