The Complaint Department

GaPonyFarm · Jan 12, 2004

JimF65 said:
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.

Ford never envisioned that 65 Mustang to last 178k miles, much less 250k. They designed and built it to last 3-4 years. Proof is in the cowling and the fact that very, very few have not be repaired or replaced. It was never given any more that a slight prime and sealed up.

Given the roads available in the 60's, and a historical average of less than 8k miles per year, an average family would take 22 years to drive 178k. Remember, it was a much less mobile society back then.

GaPonyFarm · Jan 12, 2004

JimF65 said:
289 4V D-Code engine was certainly not 4 or 6 cylinders. My first 65 was a V-8. (I don't know of any 4-cylinder Ford cars in the 60s... do you?) And I ran nothing but unleaded gas in it. 100 octane unleaded... darn near impossible to find today. And I was satisfied with the 21 mpg, since the car was very fast!!

100 octane unleaded or any other unleaded was impossible to find in 1965.

GaPonyFarm · Jan 12, 2004

skywarp said:
Well said. Don't like it don't buy it.

I've seen these same arguments on tons of boards I've visited. I estimate that maybe 20,000 people (tops) are having these discussions. I just wonder what the other 150,000 people, going through life blissfully unaware, will think when this car hits showrooms, in the fall.

You can bet that Ford is peeking in on the internet forums, and sweating the big day of release. Ford made the 65 Mustang in order to save the company, the 2005 is poised to do the same, 40 years later.

I apologize for all the consecutive posts... I was going through the entire thread... I'm all caught up now and will be quiet..

351CJ · Jan 12, 2004

GaPonyFarm said:
100 octane unleaded or any other unleaded was impossible to find in 1965.

You certainly could buy it. Amoco sold unleaded gas. Their "Ultimate" was advertised as 100 octane unleaded. Although the octane rating method was different from today, so it was probably more like 94 - 95 octane with today's ratings.

65conv50 · Jan 12, 2004

GaPonyFarm said:
100 octane unleaded or any other unleaded was impossible to find in 1965.

Obviously you were not around in the 50s and 60s. Amoco unleaded (it was called "white gas") was plentiful, although expensive at $.32 per gallon. 100 octane+ I'm sure there were other brands, also.

65conv50 · Jan 12, 2004

GaPonyFarm said:
Ford never envisioned that 65 Mustang to last 178k miles, much less 250k. They designed and built it to last 3-4 years. Proof is in the cowling and the fact that very, very few have not be repaired or replaced. It was never given any more that a slight prime and sealed up.

Given the roads available in the 60's, and a historical average of less than 8k miles per year, an average family would take 22 years to drive 178k. Remember, it was a much less mobile society back then.

Actually, the average then was about 12K/year. I put 150,000 on my 2nd 65 Mustang in 10 years of daily driving plus business trips. Put 13k on my 63 1/2 Sprint before buying the 1st Mustang, in about a year. Put 185,000 on the family's '70 Olds Vista-Cruiser before selling it (lousy gas mileage, about 17, but had to change motor due to dropping of gas octane in the 70s. It was high compression and wouldn't run on 93.) Put 206,000 on my 77 ElCamino. Could go on and on. 150-200k is just NO BIG DEAL!!

Yes, the cowl was a weak point. But the Mustang was famous for being overbuilt for the market. They really didn't expect them to last as long as they have. BTW, my cowls are just fine and have never been replaced. Just went up in there and cleaned out the gunk (leaf and pine needle debris, yuk) and repainted them.

One thing I DO like about the '05 is the headlights. Finally regular headlights you can buy for $10 instead of those ridiculously expensive things of the last generation!

SVTdriver · Jan 12, 2004

What headlights for $10 are you talking about? I can get the replacement lights for mine for under $10 each.

65conv50 · Jan 12, 2004

SVTdriver said:
What headlights for $10 are you talking about? I can get the replacement lights for mine for under $10 each.

My '65 has headlights that cost under $10 - just bought a new pair of halogens for it. It looks like that is what they are going to again, is what I was referring to. That is good. I don't know what the headlights cost on the current production model, but they would certainly be more expensive than those on my (late) wife's '93 T-Bird, which were $163.10 each, 10+ years ago.

SVTdriver · Jan 12, 2004

Ahh. Yes it does look sort of like that. But from the magazine pics I have seen. I think they are sticking with the sealed beam halogens. Just like curret car. And they are definately expensive if you break the head light. But if you are just changing a burned out bulb. They are still pretty cheap.

SportscarFan · Jan 12, 2004

65conv50 said:
My '65 has headlights that cost under $10 - just bought a new pair of halogens for it. It looks like that is what they are going to again, is what I was referring to. That is good. I don't know what the headlights cost on the current production model, but they would certainly be more expensive than those on my (late) wife's '93 T-Bird, which were $163.10 each, 10+ years ago.

It seems to me that you are saying that there are sealed beam headlights in there, where you replace a nice big 5" round bulb, when it comes time... I think it isn't quite that old-school. I pre-apologize if I mis-understand you.

The 05 Mustang headlights look to be expensive. The round element you are seeing are just one small part of the assembly, the other major parts being the black surround that meets with the bumber, and the acrylic lens that actually seals off diagonally across the front, from the grille to the fender. There is not actually a cavity for the airflow, the black bezel is enclosed across the front. I would bet dollars to donuts that the lens, black bezel, chrome reflector and mounting/aiming brackets in the back are all assembled and glued to be relatively water tight, with just a replaceable bulb element in the back. That might make it hard to paint the black bezels to match the body color...

The replaceable bulb may be 10$, but I am willing to bet that the multi-peice headlight assembly is far from cheap. Don't say I didn't warn you...

Ron Jeremy · Jan 12, 2004

I also want to see a standard 10 Year/100,000 mile warranty on the 2005 Mustang.

SVTdriver · Jan 12, 2004

Shouldn't that have been posted in the thread where they are actually discussing the hyundai?

JimF65 · Jan 13, 2004

Why Hundai??? Ford sells more luxury cars in North America than any other carbuilder! Why can't they put a good warranty on their cars????

JimF65 · Jan 13, 2004

pairofnines said:
First off, there is a complaint thread somewhere, so a whole new thread saying the same crap others repeatedly say is getting old.

This is the complaint thread. Didn't you notice?????

pairofnines · Jan 13, 2004

JimF65 said:
This is the complaint thread. Didn't you notice?????

Tyler moved the thread I orginally posted in to this one, so I can probably delete that part of my post. Sorry for the confusion, I'm not that stupid, haha.

Thanks a lot Tyler, you ruined my reputation, sheesh! Haha, jk

JaysGreenLX · Jan 13, 2004

JimF65 said:
Why Hundai??? Ford sells more luxury cars in North America than any other carbuilder! Why can't they put a good warranty on their cars????

Luxury????? Ford???????

tylers65 · Jan 13, 2004

JaysGreenLX said:
Luxury????? Ford???????

Licoln
Mercury
Volvo
Jaguar
Aston Martin
Land Rover

All Ford, all luxury.

GaPonyFarm · Jan 13, 2004

65conv50 said:
One thing I DO like about the '05 is the headlights. Finally regular headlights you can buy for $10 instead of those ridiculously expensive things of the last generation!

Why do I have the feeling that they'll end up costing $100.00 to replace. I don't think Ford would use any part that we can replace cheaply...

SVTdriver · Jan 13, 2004

Yes I'm sure the lens assembly will cost $100 or more. But the bulbs inside them will not likely pass even $20.

JimF65 · Jan 14, 2004

tylers65 said:
Licoln
Mercury
Volvo
Jaguar
Aston Martin
Land Rover

All Ford, all luxury.

Very good, Tyler. You're up to date. But don't forget Mazda.... some models border on luxury cars, too. (Wellll, maybe the brand isn't classed as such.....)

The Complaint Department

GaPonyFarm

New Member

GaPonyFarm

New Member

GaPonyFarm

New Member

351CJ

New Member

65conv50

New Member

65conv50

New Member

SVTdriver

65conv50

New Member

SVTdriver

SportscarFan

New Member

Ron Jeremy

New Member

SVTdriver

JimF65

New Member

JimF65

New Member

pairofnines

New Member

JaysGreenLX

tylers65

I've got your tool right here!

GaPonyFarm

New Member

SVTdriver

JimF65

New Member

Similar threads

The Complaint Department

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

I've got your tool right here!

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency