black 05 on freeway (photos)

M

medium cool

New Member

Apr 17, 2004

6

0

0

Northern Baltimore County

May 30, 2004

#21

• May 30, 2004

• #21

Sadly, it looks cheap and without character...exposed mufflers? Oh please.
IMHO.

Maybe it's a rental "mule".

Perhaps later/different versions will be more remarkable.

 

S

sixstringthing

New Member

Aug 11, 2003

297

0

0

May 30, 2004

#22

• May 30, 2004

• #22

i didn't notice the mufflers when I saw it in person, now EVERYTHING about the back-end looks like crap.

 

S

scottie1113

Founding Member

Mar 14, 2002

1,398

0

0

Grass Valley CA

May 30, 2004

#23

• May 30, 2004

• #23

Delete the spoiler and I think it looks great!

 

SuperStang83

Founding Member

Mar 21, 2001

1,693

0

49

Boyertown, Pa

May 30, 2004

#24

• May 30, 2004

• #24

I love Bullitt wheels, but I think that it is tasteless to carry them into another generation! Other than that the car looks great!

Jakob

 

jmuva44

Founding Member

Nov 25, 2000

1,338

0

36

Richmond, VA

May 30, 2004

#25

• May 30, 2004

• #25

I think all of you are staring at the picture too hard. The car is more than just looks. Its going to be the best all around performance stock Mustang GT ever built. Who cares about the mufflers and the spoiler? Throw on some magnapacks or SLP catback and take off the spoiler when you get it and problems solved.

 

D

Dan05GTOwner

New Member

Apr 14, 2003

95

0

0

Toronto, Ontario

May 30, 2004

#26

• May 30, 2004

• #26

To all naysayers.......please stick to your guns when the 05's hit the lots and leave more for the rest of us. However, I have a feeling there will be a lot of backpedalling come October.

 

P

ponypowa2

New Member

May 17, 2004

228

0

0

Destin, FL

May 31, 2004

#27

• May 31, 2004

• #27

Haha I love stangs, and I like the new body style, but the concept looked much better imho. LOL at those mufflers, lets hope the black spray paint helps hide them.

 

S

sajawebb

New Member

Apr 4, 2004

105

0

0

May 31, 2004

#28

• May 31, 2004

• #28

Check out http://www.ponydrive.us/ maybe you can get a look at the 05 in person. or more specifically check the schedule @ http://www.ponydrive.us/schedule.pdf you'll need adobe reader to view http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

 

jmuva44

Founding Member

Nov 25, 2000

1,338

0

36

Richmond, VA

May 31, 2004

#29

• May 31, 2004

• #29

The concept is always going to be better. They probably shelled out millions of dollars for it. Its supposed to make you salivate and wet your pants. You arent going to get the concept for < $25,000. Plus if they gave you that, they would not be as able to make a newer, better model 5 years later. They can't throw out all the tricks at once. ALSO, they have to leave a niche open for the aftermarket boys cuz that is what keeps the Mustangs finding new homes.

If ya dont like the new Mustang, dont buy it. If your only complaints are regarding the freakin spoiler and the mufflers, I would have to say Ford did a pretty darned good job.

 

K

Knexo

New Member

Dec 23, 2003

18

0

1

Michigan

May 31, 2004

#30

• May 31, 2004

• #30

As mensioned earlier, they were put there because the fuel tank was put in front of the axles. If you guys are so unhappy with them there, don't buy it. As a guy thats looking forward to buying one, that means less time to wait when I order mine. Just be happy Ford decided to build another Mustang with the mufflers back there, then just drop the car like GM did. When GM couldn't pass federal crash standards, they droppped the car, Ford made a chose to switch the tank and mufflers and make the car again.

 

aete2

Founding Member

Nov 23, 2001

554

3

19

Jun 1, 2004

#31

• Jun 1, 2004

• #31

I have to agree with everyone something is'nt right

 

jmuva44

Founding Member

Nov 25, 2000

1,338

0

36

Richmond, VA

Jun 1, 2004

#32

• Jun 1, 2004

• #32

For $25,000 you cant expect perfection. If you want something closer to perfect, spend $50,000+

 

97v6Silver

it came to $4.56 and i got $0.44 change from a 5,

Apr 22, 2003

843

0

0

VA Beach

Jun 2, 2004

#33

• Jun 2, 2004

• #33

Can anyone say potaic grand am, why don't they just put the trumpets on the end and call it a day? As the cost the old ones are less then 20K and they have the mufflers forward. If you ask me moving the fuel tank forward is a mistake to start with, the stang now is a litle too light in the back end, so the new stang need some serious suspention tweeking to be able to auto-cross it... I think they're moving away from the muscle/sports car look also the body just looks like a 2 door familly sedan now instead of a "racin machine"

 

jmuva44

Founding Member

Nov 25, 2000

1,338

0

36

Richmond, VA

Jun 2, 2004

#34

• Jun 2, 2004

• #34

Okay, a '97 isnt that sporty looking. 94-98s are feminine looking. And yes, I can say that cuz I have one. The foxes arent that sporty looking, they look like escorts. Whats your point? This isnt a viper or a ferrari. Besides you have a V6, what are complaining about?? How is a '97 V6 in comparison? I mean for real. You still bought that didnt you? Exactly.....

One point you guys dont seem to care about is that the mufflers/fuel tank movement wasnt done to look good or bad. It was done to keep the Mustangs at your Ford dealership and your whinin butts out of the hospital or graves. Out of the whole car, the location and look of the mufflers is the least important aspect of the car. I dont understand why that has got you guys whining so much and how you can really consider yourself into cars if that is how you go about critiquing them. Who cares? The car is going to be so much more stable due to improvements in suspension and chassis rigidity that it will still make way better autocrosser than our bulky, ancient chassis. Overall, its the most sporty functioning and looking Mustang GT that has ever come off the line. The new Mustang GT/Cobra are close as Ford (excluding the new GT40 and special limited production models) has ever gotten to a real muscle car, in my opinion, since the 60s. So I guess if you dont like it, keep buying your super mean looking, ultra highperformance version of the Mustang and hope to god you dont pull up next to one of these.

 

G

GT5oh

New Member

Jan 26, 2004

42

0

0

Lubbock, TX

Jun 2, 2004

#35

• Jun 2, 2004

• #35

I totally agree I've never liked the 94-98 Mustang design. Its way to round and unmuscular in my eyes. It looks like a two door Toyota Camry! To each his own but the 94-98 definatly is not the most sporty muscular mustang design but more like the exact opposite IMO.

I have no problem with the 05 muffler position except that it is only a matter of time until some ricer gets ahold of one and puts a retarded 5 inch tip fart can on it.

 

S

scottie1113

Founding Member

Mar 14, 2002

1,398

0

0

Grass Valley CA

Jun 2, 2004

#36

• Jun 2, 2004

• #36

97v6Silver said:

Can anyone say potaic grand am, why don't they just put the trumpets on the end and call it a day? As the cost the old ones are less then 20K and they have the mufflers forward. If you ask me moving the fuel tank forward is a mistake to start with, the stang now is a litle too light in the back end, so the new stang need some serious suspention tweeking to be able to auto-cross it... I think they're moving away from the muscle/sports car look also the body just looks like a 2 door familly sedan now instead of a "racin machine"

Click to expand...

Say what? The new Mustang has much better weight distribution than the current platform, and inboard weight is so much better than weight over the front or back end. In my mind, this makes it much better for autocrossing and general driving.

Hey, if you don't like the looks or the way the car has evolved, don't buy one.

It's just that simple.

 

Route666

Active Member

Aug 16, 2003

1,652

6

39

Brisbane, Australia

Jun 3, 2004

#37

• Jun 3, 2004

• #37

I reckon once you drop it on its nuts, tint the windows, put better wheels and tires on, a better exhaust, with magnesium pads on the mufflers to give off sparks, it'd look pretty cool. Even without the magnesium pads!

 

R

RICKS

New Member

Jun 5, 2003

580

0

0

Ocala, FL

Jun 3, 2004

#38

• Jun 3, 2004

• #38

Scottie1113, thank you for stating the OBVIOUS and saving me the work. 97v6Silver, your post is the new high-water mark for "I have no idea of what I'm writing about". Nothing about the current Mustang applies WHATSOEVER to the new one. None of the historic bad handling traits, front to rear bias, nothing. It's a new platform, all new rules and realities. You want the weight to fall BETWEEN the front and rear wheels, not behind the axle. You don't understand the physics? Go load your trunk full of bricks until you've got a perfect 50-50 balance front to rear, and then go see how your car's tail flies out and takes you with it into the ditch.

I don't get this hubbub over mufflers in the rear, EVERY new car is doing this, from Hyundai to BMW to flippin Ferrari, and it looks fine. What, did you think that the gas tank (that nobody ever thinks to keep clean it seems ) peeking out from under the rear looked BETTER? I swear, you change somebody's undies from Hanes bikinis to Fruit-of-the-Loom boxer briefs, and they instantly bunch up.

 

97v6Silver

it came to $4.56 and i got $0.44 change from a 5,

Apr 22, 2003

843

0

0

VA Beach

Jun 3, 2004

#39

• Jun 3, 2004

• #39

you guys like it and i don't thats all there is to it...

 

R

RICKS

New Member

Jun 5, 2003

580

0

0

Ocala, FL

Jun 3, 2004

#40

• Jun 3, 2004

• #40