The Complaint Department
- Thread starter sweet~Low~93
- Start date
mrvax said:
Noted, I apoligize if I was being offensive. Just passionate about the Mustang I guess...
...back on topic...I really have no complaint about the new Mustang (though I'm not a fan of the mufflers out back, but that's something the aftermarket will take care of) except the fact that it took soooo long. But overall it looks like Ford is doing a lot of things right lately and seems the quality of their product is turing around big time with the new F-150 and Mustang as well as other models coming out shortly. I applaud Ford for this seemingly bad arse Stang that is new from the ground up and keeping it within the same price range as the previous late model Stangs.
I'm such a dork
CatmanJJ said:
Of course there's inflation. But the problem is that payscales have not kept up with inflation. An original Mustang 289 convertible went for about 1/3 of the national average income. (A base coupe for 1/4) Today it is substantially over half. New car loans were 3 years; now it has to be 5 before people can afford the payments, even with interest rates lower. That makes it less affordable, and the fact that other cars have gone up just as much is irrelevant, because people have other things to buy as well as cars. For example, housing increases have been far worse in most parts of the country. Taxes even worse.
Common impression (outside of the enthusiasts groups) is that the Mustang is an expensive toy. Ford SAYS they are going to bring it back under $20k. I am applauding that move, if it is correct.
Sheesh!! Say something I don't like (teasing us with the show car, then changing everything; outdated technology) and I get fussed at, say something I like (better pricing) and STILL get barbs. Looks like anyone who thinks for himself is out of place here.
The new Mustang is OK. But Ford teased us by bragging they were going to "capture the spirit of the original", and the only thing they do in that direction is put a horse in the grille, 3-bar taillights, and fake a gas cap in the back. As a longtime Mustang owner, I was hoping they were right when I heard about styling flavor of the original with modern technology. That would have been wonderful. As a proud American, I would like to see American carmakers fight back!! Then they fail to deliver on both points.
Oh, I'd buy one before any of the Asian imports. I was just hoping for some real improvement. But after driving the beautiful but wimpy and overpriced little '04 Thunderbird, I should have known better, I guess.
JimF65 said:
I think it is relevant because how can you compare the Mustang not being as affordable as it was 40 years ago since the market and country itself has changed so much as a whole?
JimF65 said:
What concept car to date has been exactly the same as the production model, I say the concept Mustang has been one of the closest examples to date. Again I don't see the big deal on the pricing issue here. All new car, better performance, safety and amenities for just a little more cash.
JimF65 said:
We just differ in opinion on this one, I think Ford has captured the spirit of the original (shark nosed hood, fast back styling, rwd, awesome V8, bucket seats, retro interior) while staying modern.
JimF65 said:
So basically you're writing off the new Mustang cause you test drove an overpriced undpowered cruiser niche vehicle (that pretty much has nothing in common with the new Mustang) and you didn't like it?
CatmanJJ said:
Nope. That's the exact opposite of what I was saying. The Mustang and T-Bird are totally different cars, but made by the same company with the same executives. They refuse to build a driver's version of the 'bird, (for the same $$ you can buy a Z-4, same size, also American made, with almost as good styling but better build and way better performance, including a 6-speed manual) but I was hoping for more from the Mustang.
Sadly, it isn't happening. And the same jellybean styling as the 'bird seems to have moved to the production Mustang versus the really sharp concept car. I remember the 63 Mustang II concept car, which had very much the same flavor as the later production model. Didn't happen this time.
My point in comparing the T-Bird is that the reaction - disappointment - was the same. I had higher expectations for both. Yes, they are different cars. But they BOTH could have been much better cars, in my opinion. I'm not going to write them off, just yet. They could improve, and as one poster said, you really can't tell until you get your hands on one.
The Mustang is OK overall, I'm just a bit disappointed in Ford. Maybe they could get into the new Automotive Technology Research Center they are building in South Carolina. They could sure use some updating.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
What is it you think is so behind the times on the new mustang. I probably missed it somewhere but would like to know.
JimF65 said:
They have put themselves in a hole and I think they've realized that , I bet they're working their arses off to try and catch up. Hopefully you're right though and they will become the company they once were.
OT: Man, u should have seen the Shelby Roadster show on "Rides" (on TLC)last night, if that's an indication of Ford's new commitment to their product as a whole, they'll be in good shape.
Well I for one am happy with the newer Mustangs. The old ones were ready to be gone through at 50k miles and in 1973 I brought my 1966 for $525 at which point I spent about $2000 getting it back into shape.
Facts I remember:
1970 my cousin got a job at wonder bread at $5 an hour and that was a very good middle class wage.
1973 I got a part time job making $1.25 an hour (about average) for unskilled labor.
Most new cars in the 60's $2k to 3k range.
Now when I look at my mustangs today I expect them to go at least 150k without major issues and they have since 1982. They get great gas mileage compared to the 8 to 12mpg of the past (in gas saving alone you'd pay for the car in a few years) and the technology alone it's like comparing a VW with a Viper.
The old cars were brutes but crude and very dangerous with lap belts, bias ply tire, and no air bags. I don't know what avg wage your using but a new stang is just as afordable since it last 2 to 3 times longer without going though it.
Facts I remember:
1970 my cousin got a job at wonder bread at $5 an hour and that was a very good middle class wage.
1973 I got a part time job making $1.25 an hour (about average) for unskilled labor.
Most new cars in the 60's $2k to 3k range.
Now when I look at my mustangs today I expect them to go at least 150k without major issues and they have since 1982. They get great gas mileage compared to the 8 to 12mpg of the past (in gas saving alone you'd pay for the car in a few years) and the technology alone it's like comparing a VW with a Viper.
The old cars were brutes but crude and very dangerous with lap belts, bias ply tire, and no air bags. I don't know what avg wage your using but a new stang is just as afordable since it last 2 to 3 times longer without going though it.
JimF65 said:
The Thunderbird was definately a dispointment in the performance department, but the '05 appears to be on target performance wise.
The Thunderbird has already been canceled, according to Car & Driver. They might produce them for another year or two, but there doen't appear to be real zeal for making the Tbird better.
I believe that it was noted in several magazines that the concept really pointed the way for the future upscale Mustang SVT. A lot of the details that you are concerned with will be on high end cars. If you can throw out the cash for a Tbird, then a $30K for a Boss/Mach/SVT type Mustang with IRS, 4 or 5 valves per cylinder, more agressive styling, and possibly a suppercharger isn't so bad.
As an engineer in the automotive field, I don't rate the Z4 too highly. It is a glorified Miata with extremely bad sheetmetal. And yes, I have driven both cars so I can make that statement. Even C&D, who usually has a love fest for Bimmers, gave it a thums down compared to the S2000, the 350 Z, and the rather long in tooth Boxster.
ttown said:
Your gas mileage reflects only the worst of the 70s cars. My first Mustang (a '65 D code 289 4v, 4-speed "gas-guzzler") got 21 MPG. My second one (originally 200 I-6) got about 23. Not great, for the time. Most cars got in the 20s, the VW was the only one to break 30. But remember, that was with much better gas. 94 octane was the minimum for the 6, 98 for the V-8. My current "gas-guzzling" V-8 gets about 29 on the highway (LT-1). And with 93 octane. So they have inproved the mileage, even as the gas went to pot. Good for them. (My late wife's T-Bird got 32 on the highway, and it was a V-6). But hardly enough to pay for the car price difference, even with the gas price (and tax) increases.
My current 65 Mustang had 178,000 when I put it into storage, for later rebuilding. A long way from being worn out, still capable of dependable everyday driving, but a 3rd car and I was being transferred halfway across the country on a temp assignment. Detroit cars of the 60s were good for 250,000 if you took care of them. A new one last 2 to 3 times that? I don't think so.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
I'm not saying you didn't get that kind of mileage. But I have also heard that cars from the 60's didn't get as good of gas mileage as newer ones. And although mine may have something wrong with it. My 66 with a plain 289 is lucky to get 12 MPG.
63_Fairlane said:
I agree somewhat on the Z4. It's certainly not in the classic class as the Z3. I have driven one, also (they are built near here) and they aren't in the Z3 class, but they are still a heckuvva sight better than a T-Bird for same size and price. And they are the same type car - 2-seat luxury roadster. I agree on the styling - don't like it - why would a German company design such an Asian looking car????
Both my son and my fiancee have Z3s. I have driven the Z3 all over the eastern US, and that's a real driver's car. The Miata is just a putt-putt in comparison to either one, by no stretch in that class. And, yes, I considered a Miata, until I drove my son's Z3!!
Now if Ford wants a real target for the new Cobra (the 2-seater "real" Cobra)
they should try to approach the performance of the M-roadster!!!
But this is a Mustang site, so I'll say no more on those cars.
SVTdriver said:
Ouch, but remember, you're running gas with precious little octane left in it. Yes, today's cars get better mileage. I think fuel injection has a lot to do with it. That's one reason I put a 5.0 HO EFI in my 65 Mustang. (it originally had a 6 and was of no collector value).
Actually, 70s was when the mileage really got terrible. All the so-called pollution control stuff was new and really hurt. I had an employee with a Vega (remember them?) 4 cylinder that only got 11.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
JimF65 said:
I remeber the Vega but only because my stepfather had one. He was raised in a Chevy family. While my mother was raised Ford. I have thought about a fuel injection conversion for my 66. But the last time I looked (about 2 years ago) nobody ade a complete kit and I couldn't find any info on all the pieces I'd need. So I am considering a modular conversion. I can find more info on them. I figure since it takes a tank and a half to dirve about 200 miles. I'll eventually make the money back.
My 1972 Ford Pinto was lucky to get 18mpg highway! It had a 2000cc engine. My current Mustang gets almost 24 highway, 17 city.
JimF65 said:
Miatas can hold there own on a road course or auto-cross, but I agree the Z3 was a much better car. Then again, the Z3 was really an MG. BMW "borrowed" the design from MG in the early 90's.
As for the price of cars, they have followed the price of all other durable goods including houses. Houses that cost 20K thirty years ago are in the 120-150k range now. I agreed that the level of inflation is rediculous, but it is across the board.
You also have to look at the content of the car. A new 05 will be equiped with at least a 6 speaker CD/MP3 stereo with XM as an option, airconditioning, overdive, airbags, three point seatbelts, possibly leather, 17 inch tires, 12.5 inch front brakes, antilock, taction control, halogens(possibly HIDs, 3 valve overhead cam heads, fuel injection, stock 300 HP (something on the order of ~400 HP by the old gross standard of the 1960's), windows that actually roll up and seal, etc...
So you are paying for some engineering in there somewhere
By the way, how far from Greenville do you live?
SVTdriver
Founding Member
JimF65 said:
Sorry I posted Jim, seems you just want to argue. You claim a 300hp car is too much and then you want to compare gas mileage to a 4 or 6 cyclinder car of the 60's
. Sorry don't follow you logic on that one, some new cars with 4 and 6 cyclinder engines are getting 50mpg but what does that have to do with a performance car?I can tell you for a fact my 66 w/289 4v (BTW 225hp NOT 300hp) and 69 351/4v maybe got 15mpg and the 351 got better gas mileage since I always drove it above 70mph.
My mileage figure are right on for cars with that HP range and don't forget in 1973 they started figuring HP differently, a 300hp car today is about equal to a 350/375hp car of the 60's.
What are you comparing? You I-6 Mustang with the new GT, no wonder you think there too high. You should be on the 6 cyclinder talk thread.
250k miles on a car from the 60's with 60's parts?
Most people traded before 50k because they couldn't rely on them anymore. Since your running better oil, better gas (non-leaded), and better parts you can now rebuild your 60's car to be more like a new one but your sure not using 60's technology are you.Similar threads
