RJC_Pony99 said:It may have been said already, but I REALLY WANT the IRS to be an option on the GT. I can't afford the Cobra and I am not big on Drag racing. What I really want is a better handling daily driver.
Are you listening FORD??????
78Mach1 said:ACTUALLY the best selling Mustang made was The 66 1 have the list of top 10 sales(based on totals by model year) up until 1993- anyone have the sales totals from 93 +??? might be interesting
1 1966: 547,511
2 1965: 499,243
3 1967: 442,686
4 1979: 302,309
5 1968: 299,061
6 1974: 296,041
7 1969: 293,338
8 1980: 246,008
9 1975: 199,199
10 1978: 179,039
In 5 years the II sold 1,014,474 cars not bad for a car that NO ONEliked.
And as for you not wanting to rank on the mustang heritage, what do you think your staement did! It's called being a hipocrite. Like some one else said, the change in HP ratings came in 72- unless you are trying to uniformed or ignorant and basing assumptions on the 74 model year that only had the 4 (yes a whopping 88 hp)and 6(again A whopping 106hp) cylinders availabe, the II's were not any more underpowered than the early year 289/302's in 75 the 302 was finally back in the Mustang rated at 140hp net- not too far off the classics numbers after they are ajusted to net
Frankly our II's get more respect from Gm and Import owners than we do from fellow Stangers. You may not like the cars, and I will respect your opinion as such, but at least give those of us who own, and love them the repect that WE deserve. It's like beating a dead @uck#$g horse for Christs sake.
At least we had a lot more Style than the foxes, and a lot of it was taken from the originals. Add to that that we we the first Top cars(77 and 78), AND we also had Sunroofs all along, AND THE FIRST to use 5.0 BADGING to boot(the King)!
Ok End rant begin
351CJ said:#1. I agree, the 71 - 73's are ugly and oversized. However someone I know had a 71 convertable with a 429 and with the top down it actually looked pretty good.
#2. Read the 5.0 article I referenced on the 2002 GT times (Dec 2002) it seems a lot more realistic to me.
#3. I included the C&D times because as slow as they are, they show how fast the modern Mustangs are compared to the 1960's stangs.
#5. This is the original point I was trying to make FastmustangII was wishing to be alive in the 1960's to experience the Muscle Car era. I was trying to point out that in reality most people are looking back to the 60's with rose colored glasses. It wasn't as wonderful as most people make out, including the cars.
About a year ago I got rid of my last old car, a 1972 Gran Torino Sport with a 351CJ & 4 speed. Yes it was big and heavy, however with coil springs all around and some more modern design elements it was a far better car for overall driving than those 1960's Mustangs, Fairlaines and Torinos, all of which are really just upgraded 1960's Falcons underneath with their strut front suspension and horribly obsolete rear leaf springs.
I replaced my last Torino ( I had several ) with a 2001 GT, 5 speed coupe. The 2001 GT is a far better car in virtually every aspect and any 1960's or 1970's car that I have owned.The only real complaint that I have with my GT is that the seats are marginal and the headrestes suck. But if I want to spend the $$ that's easily fixed with Mach 1 or Cobra seats.
78Mach1 said:anyone have the sales totals from 93 +??? might be interesting
fastmustangII said:I would have been a flower child
That list was the top 10 selling models based on totals by model year. production totals I only have for the II's:351CJ said:Here are some sales #'s for recent years. You can't compare today's sale #'s to the 60's as it is a different world. Import sales were almost insignificant in the 60's and the only people who bought trucks back then actually used them as trucks.
Sales #'s by calander year, for the US only, you didn't say what your #'s were. You can add about 10% for Canadian sales to the #'s below.
2003: 138,500 estimated sales were 128,101 through Nov 30
2002: 138,356
2001: 169,198
2000: 173,676
1999: 166,916
1998: 147,587
1997: 119,795
1996: 127,464
Sorry, but I couldn't find 1994 & 1995 #'s.
Production #'s by Model Year:
2003: ??
2002: 142,404
2001: 155,563
2000: 215,693
1999: 133,907 - Short production year, prod. didn't start until Dec 98 or Jan 99
1998: 170,642 - This was a long production year becasue the 1999 was late.
1997: 100,254
1996: 126,483
1995: 165,037
1994: 123,598
As you can see the 1999 - 2003 Mustangs have done better than the 1994 - 1998 model, with the 2000 model year slipping into #9 on your top 10 list.
I can remember back to 1998 when all the nay-sayers were whining about the SN95 Mustang and how ugly it was and how horrible the Mod motor was, and how the Mustang was dead. If Ford can manufacture enough of them, I'll bet they will sell 200,000+ Mustangs in 2005.
These #'s are not perfect, I checked a couple of sources and found a good 5% variation between them. It may be that one set of #'s included export models the other was US only.
SVTdriver said:I just missed the 60's. But that's why I have a 66 fastback.
scubastang said:I would like to see near future versions have these (without $$ in mind):
- GTS versions available (i.e. almost like a drag pack that is mentioned) like in 95
- at least 3.27 gears stock
- Standard short throw shifter (unless new ones will have one??)
- Cobra equipped with turbo system instead of roots blower
- GT standard with 3 valve 5.4 (thus at least standard ~350fwhp)
- IRS/Live axle option in GT and Cobra
- HID headlights standard in GT and Cobra (eg. focus is moving to this)
- Cobra is 2 seater
- better stock internals on GT to handle boost better as 4.6 block is descent
Thats off the top of my head
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?