I don't see even a hint of any styling cues from any Mustang from early 70's to present(with the exception of maybe the tail lights vaguely resembling a fox body). They totally ignored those years and purposly made the car to look like one from the late 60's. They could have done something evolutionary and modern but in stead they went strait-up retro.

 

WHO SAID THIS?!?! Where are you guys getting this from?!?!

SO much passion, but so misdirected?!?!
I can't think of ANY car clubs, organizations, or support groups that are larger and more pronounced than the Mustangs. Over 8 million sold as compared to 1.4 miilion Vettes. Maybe not by loyalty(?), but in sheer volume you can't compare the two.
Mustang Clubs number in the THOUSANDS. The most recognized - Mustang Club of America - has over 160 local chapters.

The MCA, NMRA, and local clubs are all used HEAVILY by Ford in developing future Mustang iterations. The owner of every new Mustang sold is also queried by Ford multiple times as to satisfaction with the purchase, as well as suggestions or "wish lists" for upcoming models. Ford takes the opinion and feedback from the buying public VERY seriously regarding this car, I assure you. It was precisely this public feedback that saved the car from Mazda, Probe, and plain death. The popularity of the car since the late '80s is because the car IS what the buying public WANTS IT TO BE!

I take nothing from the Vette whatsoever. I honor and respect it for being a tremendous American Icon. It is a Legend all it's own. But if you think it's getting any more recognition, scrutiny, or attention to design changes and makeovers than the Mustang is... I think you are mistaken.
In my defense, THIS ARTICLE from the Detroit Free Press covers some of the criteria that makes Mustang what it is, with buyers' demigraphics, stats, and it even states that the Mustang nameplate is MORE recognized than the mighty Vette.

I hope nobody takes me wrong over this - I'm not a troll, or begging for a battle - but Ford50forlife, when you made those comments insinuating the Vette gets "studied" intensely, but the Mustang is "hap-hazard"... I think you were speaking from passion and opinion, not from fact.

 

First things first - GRANTED - we all get to enjoy our own opinion.
They may have tried to style the new car based on a '67 per Mays' comments (I dunno if that's true on the part of the whole team) but in MY OPINION, it does NOT resemble a '67 model any more than any other year. In fact, I think it resembles the '68 Shelby more than anything due to the hood scoops and body proportions. Look at the scoops on this new '05 vert and look at this '68 Shelby vert. Now here's a '67 Shelby - big difference!

The funny thing is, if they wanted it to emulate a '67, why are they advertising it with a '64 1/2 model, a '66 model, and the '69 Shelby drop-top? Again, I just think they were after the crux of what made the first gen cars special as a whole, not an "updated photocopy" of a certain year/model. And I personally see much modern influence in the body, as well as the car as a whole.

I'm good with what you, Darth, and Chris are saying... I see your points, I guess I am just not quite seeing it as "retro" as you guys, that's all. It's just a personal, opinionative thing! We're all good, IMO.

 

I said this..... jumping to conclusions are we?? was there a quote in the beginning of my previous statement?

i never said it was MORE carefully designed than the mustang, i said it was MORE of a risk EACH style change they make because the icon has been around LONGER... as for the "hap-hazard" mustang, it was THE MASSES OPINION THAT saved it from the probe death that is for sure, BUT THEY ALREADY READY TO COME OUT WITH IT, they had v8 prototypes and if it wasnt for the loyal supporters (mostly the campus kids who hated driving it) writing letters that they finally decided to change it, then we would have had a flip up light mustang... i dont like that fact at all (although i like the fact they DID change it because they valued the customers opinons)

Just like you said im not here for an arguement, but i find it funny that the mustang has evolve ever so much, yet it doesnt IN THE LEAST still have the same mission..

in the mid to late 60's mustangs were all about customization, making a car that fits YOU! look at what we've got into now? V6 or V8, AUTO OR STICK, a far cry from the days when the options numbered into the hundreds....

as oppossed to the vette which still is true to what its mission was, a 2 seat sports car... the only thing its really been off track on of late is the luxury aspect in the new models, and i think its a welcome edition..

 

What exactly was the mustangs mission? It is as much a people's car today as it had been in the past. It's still a car that's generally marketed to the masses and sales #'s with it being tops in it's class proves that. What did it start off as? it started off as an affordable and sporty rwd 4 seater coupe or convertible with a 6 and a small 8. The current mustang has evolved and modernized yet still remains true to it's heritage and roots.

That's true of any car today, but when talking about the mustang, you're statement doesn't exactly hold true.

For 2003 the mustang has 4 different engines
Base 3.8L -193hp
GT 4.6 Sohc- 260hp
Mach-1 4.6L Dohc - 305hp
4.6L Dohc S/c - 390hp

Now how many cars today offer 4 different engines on a single platform? Name 5, heck 1 if you can. You still have a choice of coupe or convertible. You have a choice of either base, GT, Mach 1, or Cobra. There have been Cobra R's, a 01 Bullit, an 03 mach 1, and next year a BOSS. To supplement for the previous shelby's and BOSS"s, you now have Saleens, Steeda's, Roush's, Shinoda, Kenney Brown, Shean Highland (sp?) and various other special limited editions most which can be bought and financed through Ford dealers. You have various optional and standard rims, paint colors, tranny's, interiors, exterior styling, etc. depending on trim. It's not as bad as you make it out to be. Yes, things have become simplified with the addition of many standed features (and the stang has plenty) but there is no reason why you couldn't walk out with the mustang you wanted. I wonder what you think of the f-bod twins since they had even fewer options. On top of that, todays aftermarket is far better then then yesteryears and FRPP still offers a wide array of factory engineered crate motors and performance parts most which carry a warranty as well.

Just mt 2 cents. Not an argument, just a disagreement. You have a valid point. I just don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be.

 

You guys have had alot more choice than 4th Gens had. Which is always good.

 

Not to knit-pick but
for 2002 The Camaro engine options were...
Base 3.8L - 200 HP
RS 3.8L HO - 205 HP
Z28 5.7L - 315 HP
SS 5.7L - 325 HP

Same for Firebird:
Base 3.8L - 200 HP
GT 3.8L HO - 205 HP
Formula 5.7L - 305 HP
Trans-Am 5.7L - 310 HP
Trans-Am WS6 - 320 HP
and add the FireHawk - 345 HP

And not to brag, but with the exception of the V6 (which has more output than the Mustang V6) Chevy (you can call it being conservative flat out lied about the power outputs for the LS1 engine. At the flywheel the SS was outputting near 380 horses.

And to name a few outfitters or Tuners that offer their own drivetrain packages you have:
Lingenfelter
SLP
Mecham Performance
CarTech
Ramchargers
Speed Inc.
MTI
Morgan motorsports
AMS
LS1 Motorsports
Thuder Racing
TBryne
LGM
Katech
and don't forget Hot Rod Magazines very own Camaro Test car edition!
And along those lines - Earnhardt Intimidator SS, and also Berger Chevy Camaro's.

 

So true---even kinda of ironic---becaue thirdgen
Camaros/Firebirds had way more modles and power ratings then eqaivalant Mustangs had.

LX 4cly or V8---GT V8--same power as LX

Firebird/Formula Trans Am/GTA
2.73-3.45--all these choices made for cars that are far more unique then the Mustangs. Oh--except for that LX hatch or trunk thing

 

Make that 2.73 to 3.73

Not to mention the oft' forgotten Firebird S/E

Not to mention up to SIX engines per year (1983)

Iron Duke L4 TBI
2.8 V6 2bbl
2.8 V6 2bbl HO
5.0 LG4 4bbl
5.0 LU5 TBIx2
5.0 L69 4bbl HO

my cars listed below are 3.23 LU5, 3.42 V6 MPFI, and 3.73 LL1 V6 HO respectively

4th gen never even dreamt of approaching, in terms of variety

 

I wish your poll would've put another car up there.

I REALLY like the Mercury Messenger concept. It's the Mustang that looks GOOD!!

 

 

I just read an article in Autoweek about Mays and the "new" mustang. It said he was purposely emulating the 67-70 car. So they did actually pick a Mustang and try to make it look just like it. So this is contrary to what some had thought.

 

The thing is, those engines are ALMOST basically all the same say for a minimal upgrade or 2 and the ratings. The differences are minor (except on the firehawk) and aren't as pronounced as they are on the mustangs. The mustang engines are different inside and outside. Can you really consider some of the engine you mentioned above "different" engines? I know i don't. For instance, what's the difference between the T/A 5.7L and the Formulas? if i recall, they're "exactly" the same. If you look past the the minor differences, the engine options are really 3.8L v6 and 5.7L v8 with the Firehawks 5.7L (don't know much about them) being more modified by SLP.

Stop bragging . I know, it's nothing new though. Everyone knows the 01-02 Ls-1's are underrated. However that 380 crank hp may not be so accurate. Other then a few factory freaks not many will put down 380 crank horses. 380 horses with a 15% drivetrain loss (i heard the t56 loses less) is about 323rwhp. Now i doubt the majority of Ls-1's put down 323+rwhp. With a 13% loss it's 331rwhp. Now i've heard of numbers between 290-315rwhp but 331rwhp is a little far fetched if you know what i mean. Still, they are competent and underrated engines.

Ps: i didn't mean to say that the F-bods were lacking in factory options, just that they weren't any better then the mustangs. As far as new cars go, the mustang offers a good variety of engines, etc..