• 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.

The new Mustang... 2 weeks!

Tweak155

Tweak155

Lifer
http://www.at.ford.com/

In case they change the page later on...

countdown_15days.jpg
 
When do you think it'll go on sale?

Edit: Summer of 2014.

I hope I could get a V6 fully loaded for ~30k. Probably not likely though.
 
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out. I was never a big fan of the retro styling to start with, particularly the interiors.

z1ggy said:
When do you think it'll go on sale?

Edit: Summer of 2014.

I hope I could get a V6 fully loaded for ~30k. Probably not likely though.
Click to expand...

Considering the current car is over $30k for a fully loaded V6 I imagine not. Don't see them lowering the price.
 
If anyone cares, looks like they are updating the main picture with a new Mustang each day. Today is a 1976 model.
 
Tweak155 said:
If anyone cares, looks like they are updating the main picture with a new Mustang each day. Today is a 1976 model.
Click to expand...

God knows why they would ever even consider putting up the worse Mustang ever made.

They should be embarrassed and just erase that model year from the history books.
 
Vdubchaos said:
God knows why they would ever even consider putting up the worse Mustang ever made.

They should be embarrassed and just erase that model year from the history books.
Click to expand...

No. Resounding no.
1)They sold very well, some of the best years were the Mustang II.
2)It kept the name going.
3)It was necessary. The oil crises and EPA requirements forced a lot of awkwardness in design and engineering that was awful. I would take this over mid seventies era Camaros and Firebirds if I drove in that era.
4)Mustang II front ends were awesome for 65-70 guys. Plenty of parts to swap in and improve the handling and eliminate the intrusive shock towers. They now make kits that do these better and safer, but not too many years ago a Mustang II donor car was the best answer.
 
Vdubchaos said:
God knows why they would ever even consider putting up the worse Mustang ever made.

They should be embarrassed and just erase that model year from the history books.
Click to expand...

I'd lean more towards them erasing the 3rd gens...those things looked just plain silly.

My buddy has one that he plans to work on/rebuild (yeah right) and has dubbed it the "Crapstang".
 
It's totally like that Seinfeld episode where this woman looks great at one angle/lighting and then hideous in another.
 
foghorn67 said:
No. Resounding no.
1)They sold very well, some of the best years were the Mustang II.
2)It kept the name going.
3)It was necessary. The oil crises and EPA requirements forced a lot of awkwardness in design and engineering that was awful. I would take this over mid seventies era Camaros and Firebirds if I drove in that era.
4)Mustang II front ends were awesome for 65-70 guys. Plenty of parts to swap in and improve the handling and eliminate the intrusive shock towers. They now make kits that do these better and safer, but not too many years ago a Mustang II donor car was the best answer.
Click to expand...

I'd take this over a Mustang II any day.
7650th.JPG


A friend of mine had one of these when we were in high school and it was pretty fast. Nice looking car too.

car.jpg
 
Last edited:
I like the new exterior. Interior pics on C&D leave a lot to be desired though. Chinzy silver plastic on the steering wheel. Center stack with no real thought to layout. Didn't see a whole lot of mustang logos, but lots of it was covered up. Probably the same 'trying a little too hard' branding. :\ Wouldn't have taken a whole lot of effort to make it classy inside too.
 
JulesMaximus said:
I'd take this over a Mustang II any day.
7650th.JPG


A friend of mine had one of these when we were in high school and it was pretty fast. Nice looking car too.

car.jpg
Click to expand...

I have one of these sitting in the barn that was my dads, 56k original miles.
That car is FAR from fast. Look at the HP numbers on it.
Great looking car, great handler for the time and an absolute turd under the hood.
My first car i drove was a 69 grand prix, a car that probably weighed twice as much as the TA, and it would mop the floor with the ta in a drag race. Not even close.
 
Yeah, those T-birds were slow as hell. They had a good amount of low-end torque to give the sense of power, coupled with the noise. It was a visceral experience more than a speed experience.
 
jaha2000 said:
I have one of these sitting in the barn that was my dads, 56k original miles.
That car is FAR from fast. Look at the HP numbers on it.
Great looking car, great handler for the time and an absolute turd under the hood.
My first car i drove was a 69 grand prix, a car that probably weighed twice as much as the TA, and it would mop the floor with the ta in a drag race. Not even close.
Click to expand...

Not a fair comparison given the smog and crash regulations that came in and killed the later "muscle" cars.

A 69TA would probably take a 69GP. Whereas it's easy to believe a 69GP would smoke a 76 or 81TA.
 
Ferzerp said:
You guys, that's just a yet another render of what someone thinks it looks like without seeing it.
Click to expand...

It's based on CAD drawings. It also looks much like all the spy photos, at least at the front end.

I just hope the interior turns out less retro looking. I really like how they did the inside of the latest fusion/ST.
 
If they can get that V8 to provide decent enough fuel economy while cruising (I'll take cylinder deactivation if I have to) and the ride and interior quality are good enough I'll be looking to jump all over this.

I can't wait to drive one!
 
jaha2000 said:
I have one of these sitting in the barn that was my dads, 56k original miles.
That car is FAR from fast. Look at the HP numbers on it.
Great looking car, great handler for the time and an absolute turd under the hood.
My first car i drove was a 69 grand prix, a car that probably weighed twice as much as the TA, and it would mop the floor with the ta in a drag race. Not even close.
Click to expand...

His had the 6.6L engine. Didn't seem that bad at the time... this was the mid 80s though. I think they were fairly easy to get more power out of if you did a few things to them.
 
JulesMaximus said:
His had the 6.6L engine. Didn't seem that bad at the time... this was the mid 80s though. I think they were fairly easy to get more power out of if you did a few things to them.
Click to expand...

6.6L ended in 1979 according to wiki.

Most power in the mid 80's was apparently 210hp from the 350V8 and a high 6 second time to 60.

In 1989 there was the 3.8L SFI Turbo engine, which was advertised at 250hp but most people think it was closer to 300. It was definitely not slow at 4.6 seconds to 60.
 
LTC8K6 said:
6.6L ended in 1979 according to wiki.

Most power in the mid 80's was apparently 210hp from the 350V8 and a high 6 second time to 60.

In 1989 there was the 3.8L SFI Turbo engine, which was advertised at 250hp but most people think it was closer to 300. It was definitely not slow at 4.6 seconds to 60.
Click to expand...

Yep, and his was a 1979. It was dark blue with t-top and manual transmission. That car was bitchin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top