The Complaint Department

pairofnines · Jan 18, 2004

tarch said:
Yeah the mufflers are really DUMB! Why would you want to put them so far back, aside from having the tank further into the car?

First off, there is already a complaint thread.(If Tyler moves this into the complaint thread, then forget that).

Second, the mufflers are like that just so the gas tank is farther up, primarily safety reasons, but I'm sure that the aftermarket will have solutions to your problem as soon as the car comes out. I mean, c'mon, who keeps the stock exhaust?!? Thats the first thing I replace in my vehicles. I'm sure they will have low profile mufflers or something in black to hide them better. But you have to admit, when people only complain about little things like the muffler and the side fuel filler, then Ford has created a pretty good car.

Z28x · Jan 18, 2004

I would have rather seen a more modern design, but I think Ford did a great job with the retro styling. The car looks good.

SadbutTrue · Jan 18, 2004

I have not read the last 5 pages of this thread or so, so forgive me if what i post has been addressed.

The IRS is not on the GT for a number of reasons, and I personally doubt it will be offered as even an option. First, as Ford stated, the vast majority of mustang buyers don't know and/or care whether it has a live or independent rear suspension. When I say vast, I mean VAST. Probably almost all of the V6 buyers, at least 3/4 quarters of the GT buyers, and at least half of the Cobra drivers. And I'm being conservative with this. Most GT and Cobra buyers are older, many buy the car for the looks or because they had a classic mustang way back when but don't want to go through the hassle of owning an old one, and others (especially Cobra owners) just want it as a status symbol. For those that do know and care, I would say most want the live axle since you see a lot more mustang GTs at the drag strip than at the local road race venues. The few that really do care own Cobras or own GTs and whine. This really isn't very many. Second, it costs a ton more. Whether it be upgrading, repairing, or installing initially, it costs more. Third, it really, really isn't that big a deal.

My brothers 85 Vette outhandles my dads 98 GT for a number of reasons, and the IRS is but one of many factors contributing to this. It also has a far better wieght balance front to rear, stiffer shocks and springs from the factory, bigger tires stock, rides lower, weighs less, and has a far more complex suspension overall. Update all these things on a modern mustang and you'll be handling at the same level, if not better, than an IRS equipped Vette. And the new GT does address many of these things (the weight balance for sure, and it looks pretty low), and I bet it will handle extremely well.

As far as the rear filler cap, as has been said, its not an environmental issue. Filling a car from the rear does not increase its emissions. Its a safety issue, which, outside of car makers who want to save money, is more or less a bipartisan-ly supported issue. Conservatives don't like being barbecued in a death trap of a mustang any more than liberals do. It greatly, greatly reduces the amount of space in the trunk, and isn't safe.

The fog lights are a little big, but as with classic fog lights, shouldn't be hard to take out. I don't care about the mufflers, whatever. They'll be replaced on my 07 or 08 Cobra real fast.

To ron jeremy - Just wanted to make a few comments. Please stop referring to all liberals as enviromentalist, socialist, communists, anti-US troops, etc. These things are all very different and do not all apply to the average liberal. No need for a political debate, thats not was this is about. I consider myself slightly liberal. I also voted for a republican governer in the last election (not shwarzenegger though), so I consider myself pretty open-minded. That said, I believe in democracy which pretty much kills the idea of me being a socialist or communist. I'm in Air Force ROTC at my university (UC Berkeley), so be damned sure I support our troops. I do believe in the environment and believe that the government should encourage automakers to make their cars cleaner.

Being a mecahnical engineering major, i would consider it a challenge and a real accomplishment to make our cars clean, powerful, and allow our oil supply to last all at the same time (My school (graduate students and seniors) currently does a lot of work, using Ford engines as a matter of fact, to make them cleaner while maintaining power). Grouping all these things together shows that you do not have an open mind and does not bode well for your image in a public forum of discussion. In fact, I challenge you to even define what a communist and socialist is, and point out the differences between them. This is a good thing to know before you start calling all liberals (which comprises, obviously, about half of the US population) these names.

Tyler, I made that as clean as possible, if you want me to edit it, pm me and I will. Don't see anything too wrong with it. As a matter of fact, you have all the power and my permission to edit my post as you see fit, if you consider it best to do so. Its designed as a (semi) friendly criticism of some mildly ignorant posts, not a personal affront or asking for a political debate.

z28, I would bet that a midlife redesign, like the Foxes and SN95s had, will make the image more modern as the initial appeal of a retro design wears off.

Hooray for posts that resemble books.

(&) · Jan 18, 2004

SadbutTrue said:
The IRS is not on the GT for a number of reasons, and I personally doubt it will be offered as even an option. First, as Ford stated, the vast majority of mustang buyers don't know and/or care whether it has a live or independent rear suspension. When I say vast, I mean VAST. Probably almost all of the V6 buyers, at least 3/4 quarters of the GT buyers, and at least half of the Cobra drivers. And I'm being conservative with this.

Then why do you suppose 95% of all modern cars have IRS? If no one would know the difference, why do it? Sports cars, econoboxes, EVERYTHING.

SVTdriver · Jan 18, 2004

Econoboxes have it. So they can aspire to be something they are not. It's a prestige thing. I don't think most drivers are into the cars enough to tell the difference. I know most of my family couldn't tell the difference. And I'll bet most average females could care less.

SadbutTrue · Jan 18, 2004

econoboxes have it on the front wheels, which is very different. All cars have independent fronts. You can't have a live front. Plus its cheaper to build one that can handle 150 hp as opposed to 350 or so (which has to be done on a GT so that there is margin for error + room for mods, minimum). Even if they have independent rears, they don't have to be drive wheels, so its still very different. And even then, they don't need it.

Mach460 · Jan 18, 2004

SadbutTrue said:
econoboxes have it on the front wheels, which is very different. All cars have independent fronts. You can't have a live front. Plus its cheaper to build one that can handle 150 hp as opposed to 350 or so (which has to be done on a GT so that there is margin for error + room for mods, minimum). Even if they have independent rears, they don't have to be drive wheels, so its still very different. And even then, they don't need it.

Hey we don't need fuel injection, disc brakes, 1000 Watt Stereo systems either.....

SadbutTrue said:
The IRS is not on the GT for a number of reasons, and I personally doubt it will be offered as even an option. First, as Ford stated, the vast majority of mustang buyers don't know and/or care whether it has a live or independent rear suspension. When I say vast, I mean VAST. Probably almost all of the V6 buyers, at least 3/4 quarters of the GT buyers, and at least half of the Cobra drivers.

And people wonder why American automobile manufacturing is in the dumper and why Toyota overtook Ford as number 2. You don't give the buying public enough credit. Instead of giving the public a Mustang that could be one of the best handling cars...instead they chose to listen to a minority of Mustang buyers who are going to do things to Mustangs that 90% of Mustang owners will ever even dream of doing.

Live axle-benefits the small cadre of drag racers who cried loudly enough
IRS-Would have benefited an even smaller number of Mustang enthisiats...BUT...and it's a big but...the ride and handling improvements would have benefited the entire Mustang market

SadbutTrue said:
And I'm being conservative with this. Most GT and Cobra buyers are older, many buy the car for the looks or because they had a classic mustang way back when but don't want to go through the hassle of owning an old one, and others (especially Cobra owners) just want it as a status symbol.

If this is true...Ford really is making a huge mistake relying on the Mustang's heritage and name. They have to appeal to a broader market and bring in new customers. This isn't 1966, or 86, or even 1996 where the Mustang could rely on its name and heritage. The market is very crowded for the Mustang.....and every person that goes and buys a 350Z or a Subary WRX is a person that could have bought a Mustang. It's very self defeating to say they would not have bought a Mustang anyways. Well give them a reason to buy a Mustang. If you're to just conced the market....might as well just shelf the Mustang now.

The attitude being dispalyed here is the reason why the Big Three lost such huge market share.

SadbutTrue said:
For those that do know and care, I would say most want the live axle since you see a lot more mustang GTs at the drag strip than at the local road race venues. The few that really do care own Cobras or own GTs and whine. This really isn't very many. Second, it costs a ton more. Whether it be upgrading, repairing, or installing initially, it costs more. Third, it really, really isn't that big a deal

You want to talk cost.....then what's the need for a 400 dollar guage cluster that turns pretty colors, or 1300 dollars for a stereo system. I thought the Mustang was about the driving, but you people don't seem to mind spending that money for these items...but God forbid that money actually went into improving the car's handling or giving us more power. It's not a question about owning a GT and whining. I love my 2000 GT perfectly well (and my 66 fastback handles worse, and I love it to), and I don't whine about it. I know the cars handling limitations and just accept it as a consequence of the platform/technology the car rides on. I don't think I've ever headr anybody whine about the GT. But I think many may think twice about it because Ford decided to stick with old tech rear ends. Ford had a chance to completely remedy the Mustang of its faults...and I feel they missed a golden opportunity.

Mach460 · Jan 18, 2004

SVTdriver said:
Econoboxes have it. So they can aspire to be something they are not. It's a prestige thing. I don't think most drivers are into the cars enough to tell the difference. I know most of my family couldn't tell the difference. And I'll bet most average females could care less.

Geeeez....could it actually be that there's some benefit to independent suspensions....that the car actually rides and handles better

GaPonyFarm · Jan 18, 2004

Mach460 said:
Geeeez....could it actually be that there's some benefit to independent suspensions....that the car actually rides and handles better

You're not getting the friggin IRS, get back to your life! Which I suppose, from your sig., is waiting...

SVTdriver · Jan 18, 2004

Yes there could be a benefit. But again I point to the amount of people that really notice the benefit. Most average drivers ( non-mustang) that I know consider fuel economy and reliability to be far more important than suspension type.
And you are being very ignorant of the whole young car buyers market that you claim would buy a mustang. Since you seem to dismiss the fact that a great many of them would like the 1000 watt stereo. Or the color changing dash lights. It's part of a little thing they like to do called customizing. You know when you make the car look the way you want it to look.
And as for these low buck imports with this great IRS suspension. I'm seeing a lot of them over driving the car and getting into just as much trouble as they would with a live axle. Maybe you saw the thread on all the dead srt-4 neons. IRS didn't help them save the car. As I said the 350z has many more compromises than a mustang Until you get to the expensive models like the touring or track editions. The 350z is also only a 2 seater. So it is likely that they wouldn't buy a mustang. Since they don't need the backseat. The z has always been the import version of a corvette.

Mach460 · Jan 18, 2004

GaPonyFarm said:
You're not getting the friggin IRS, get back to your life! Which I suppose, from your sig., is waiting...

Ohh..your rapier wit wounds me.

And no...because unlike most people aroudn here...I actually walk the walk and do take the GT to the track....and not just in a straight line either.

But hey, we've been civil...let's try to keep that way.

Mach460 · Jan 19, 2004

SVTdriver said:
Yes there could be a benefit. But again I point to the amount of people that really notice the benefit. Most average drivers ( non-mustang) that I know consider fuel economy and reliability to be far more important than suspension type. {/QUOTE]

And I argue that people would consider ride and handling just as important as fuel economy and reliability. How the car feels is a big selling point. Again, you're not giving the public enough credit.

SVTdriver said:

And you are being very ignorant of the whole young car buyers market that you claim would buy a mustang. Since you seem to dismiss the fact that a great many of them would like the 1000 watt stereo. Or the color changing dash lights. It's part of a little thing they like to do called customizing. You know when you make the car look the way you want it to look.
And as for these low buck imports with this great IRS suspension. I'm seeing a lot of them over driving the car and getting into just as much trouble as they would with a live axle. Maybe you saw the thread on all the dead srt-4 neons. IRS didn't help them save the car. As I said the 350z has many more compromises than a mustang Until you get to the expensive models like the touring or track editions. The 350z is also only a 2 seater. So it is likely that they wouldn't buy a mustang. Since they don't need the backseat. The z has always been the import version of a corvette.

Click to expand...

No...when the Z came out in 1974...what was their bench mark...the Mustang. And it still is...and to ignore that fact is to play with fire.

(&) · Jan 19, 2004

SVTdriver said:
And as for these low buck imports with this great IRS suspension. I'm seeing a lot of them over driving the car and getting into just as much trouble as they would with a live axle. Maybe you saw the thread on all the dead srt-4 neons. IRS didn't help them save the car.

Idiot teenagers wrecking a fast car has nothing to do with suspension type and you know it. IRS is better for handling. Period. But stupid people will wreck a fast car no matter how good it is.

As I said the 350z has many more compromises than a mustang Until you get to the expensive models like the touring or track editions. The 350z is also only a 2 seater. So it is likely that they wouldn't buy a mustang. Since they don't need the backseat. The z has always been the import version of a corvette.

I'll be cross-shopping the 350Z with the Mustang, because like many other people, I don't need the back seat and don't consider it to be very useful anyway. If you need 4 seats, don't worry, there is plenty of competition there too. The Mustang is poised to fall behind.

SVTdriver · Jan 19, 2004

If the mustang is their target. Then they are failing miserably. The base model which is the only one near the gt in price has 2 options. Both of which are supplemental airbags. It does not offer cruise control even as an option. Only 1 stereo which has a whopping 160 watts. You don't even get the drilled foot pedals as an option and how hard is that. No possible leather options unless you go aftermarket. The HID headlights are standard on all models above base. But not an option on the base. Did I mention the base doesn't even have the automatic trans as an option? It doesn't get the limited slip or traction control. Then the base model has no optional wheels. Then get in one. The seats are very nice (Rather than IRS. I would have liked ford to make the seats support you better). But it's only 2 seats and look into the rearview mirror. The view out the back is about as large a a file card. And the blindspot is an 18 wheeler long. I'm reading all the information straight out of thier literature. I actually did consider buying one. Enough that I took home everything they had on it. But lack of options, the blindspot, and nearly no trunk space were things I just couldn't get over.
And sure your opinion may be the mustang is poised to fall behind. But it has lasted 40 years so far. And you can see on this site how many people like the car enough to buy it.

SadbutTrue · Jan 19, 2004

Your points are somewhat moot Mach 460. Just as some other buyers won't buy the mustang based on the mustang name alone, there are a ton of buyers that won't buy a ford because its a domestic. If I were a mustang buyer theres no way I'd get the multiple gauge color option, nor would I bother spending for the Mach 1000. The Mustang will have plenty of options that the general car won't. 300 HP engine, relatively good handling, etc. It does not need an IRS. Like I said, with less money spent but spent in other areas, it can handle better. IRS's are overrated.

Toyota overtook ford as #2 (if thats true, I heard they just passed daimler chrysler as #3, not ford) its because of product reliabity, not because of options they didn't get. Ford is just now earning back its reputation for quality, one that will take years to regain. Its not as if Toyota offered things that were outrageously unnecessary for its cars. I would bet a hundred bucks that your slight benefit to the entire mustang market would be shot down and rendered useless because of the cost increase. This, taking into account average car prices nowadays, is probably the most affordable and well-rounded 300 hp car in history. Thats what its about, not an IRS. If Ford relied on excesses, why not throw a 4 wheel drive system in, or a stock turbo, like other cars do in its class? Because it is unnecessary, just like an IRS.

It is not a huge mistake to rely on the Mustang's name. It is a big enough name, that like corvette, it can remain profitable on that alone. Making it a better car only increases sales beyond that point. And after a point, its not worth it to ford. IRS is that point. At this point, it is not worth it to Ford to install an IRS on a Mustang GT. Period.

A mustang is about the driving, and an IRS is not requisite to the Mustang driving experience. Being a fun car is, and the new mustang will fulfill that requirement and then some.

The attitude being dispalyed here is the reason why the Big Three lost such huge market share.

That is debatable. Like I said, quality is the main reason they lost market share. Ask a Camry owner why they own a Camry and not a domestic, and its because they expect it to last. There is also the eventuality of real competition inherent to democracy. For every carmaker that was successful in challenging the big 3 on american soil, there were 10 or more that failed. It just happens. I believe the big 3 will all make a comeback.

But I think many may think twice about it because Ford decided to stick with old tech rear ends. Ford had a chance to completely remedy the Mustang of its faults...and I feel they missed a golden opportunity

Trust me, engines and transmissions the public may care about.. but rearends? How many people that aren't car folk have come up to you and talked to you about how they don't like the rearend of their mustang? Honestly...

SadbutTrue · Jan 19, 2004

I was also sort of drunk during the writing of
the last post, so if any of it doesn't make sense, thats why. But an IRS still isn't necessary.

drzray · Jan 19, 2004

front end

ok, i love the way the new 05 looks. with that front end w/ the fog lights up high in the grill, anyone driving this car w/ the fog lights on will get "bright lighted" 3 out of every 5 cars. the reason i know this is that i had an early 90s acura integra and the fog/driving lights were up next to the headlights and i got bright lighted all the time by people who dont know a thing about cars.

(&) · Jan 19, 2004

SadbutTrue said:
Trust me, engines and transmissions the public may care about.. but rearends? How many people that aren't car folk have come up to you and talked to you about how they don't like the rearend of their mustang? Honestly...

None, but they do say that the ride is rough, the car "feels old", and the car is unpredictable over bumps. This has something to do with the ancient chassis, but also something to do with the rear suspension. They may not know why it sucks, but they know it sucks.

And I don't see how you can justify saying that the Mustang is all about the driving experience, but at the same time say that one of the most important things about the driving experience (the suspension) is not important.

GaPonyFarm · Jan 19, 2004

Why don't some people get it? Nobody's complaining about the lack of a turbo, although many new cars are using them. Nobody complains about the lack of a two seater, which was cleary the intent of the concept.

A new car is just a starting point for some of us. While it would be a good thing to have IRS as an option, there will be plenty of aftermarket suppliers that will be providing a bolt on product for those who want it. For those who absolutely must have IRS, just wait until '06 and buy a Cobra. Thats what it all comes down to anyway... Ford decided to mass produce a less expensive car without IRS, and produce a more limited and expensive car with IRS. The base Mustang and GT have NEVER had IRS, why expect it now? The choice is the consumers... I don't see what the controversy is all about. Its not that you can't have IRS, you just can't get it on this car, at this time. If you must have IRS... Don't buy this particular car!

I think that once you take a test drive with the current rearend design, along with the better weight ratios, you might be pleasantly surprised, over current models.

JimF65 · Jan 19, 2004

GaPonyFarm said:
... Ford decided to mass produce a less expensive car without IRS, and produce a more limited and expensive car with IRS. The base Mustang and GT have NEVER had IRS, why expect it now? The choice is the consumers... I don't see what the controversy is all about. Its not that you can't have IRS, you just can't get it on this car, at this time. If you must have IRS... Don't buy this particular car!

Forget the BS about IRS being all that expensive. The large Thunderbirds (generation prior to the current) ALL had IRS, and they sold for less than Mustangs. (Well equipped for $18k) Ford knows that, they built 'em, and sold a hekkuva lot of them!

IRS makes a REAL difference in ride. Someone asked about best riding cars - this is from a long-time Mustanger (since 1964), and owner of dozens of cars, domestic and import, and over a million miles driven: Best ride in a large car: 1993 Ford Thunderbird. Far superior to Infinity and Lexus selling for twice the price. (Also excellent handling for a big, heavy luxury car!) Best ride in a small car, 2001 BMW Z3 3.0. BOTH IRS!!! (Incidentally, both American built.)

The whole point is about bringing the Mustang into the 21st century. They just ain't doing it!!! At least as far as the ride and handling are concerned. With a V8, I think they could get away with live axle... those buyers are more about go power. But on the V-6, they really are giving up a lot of buyers if they don't have IRS and the attendant quality ride and feel.

The Complaint Department

pairofnines

New Member

Z28x

New Member

SadbutTrue

(&)

SVTdriver

SadbutTrue

Mach460

Mach460

GaPonyFarm

New Member

SVTdriver

Mach460

Mach460

(&)

SVTdriver

SadbutTrue

SadbutTrue

drzray

New Member

(&)

GaPonyFarm

New Member

JimF65

New Member

Similar threads

The Complaint Department

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency