2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Slash]

I've been to lots of states in the east coast of the US, but I think I've only seen one old lady driving a Mustang. I'm not saying it's only a sports car. All I'm saying is that it should keep the traits/characteristics it's known for.

And it has so far. This next generation honestly has me worried though.

 

[Tornado]

I've been to lots of states in the east coast of the US, but I think I've only seen one old lady driving a Mustang. I'm not saying it's only a sports car. All I'm saying is that it should keep the traits/characteristics it's known for.

And it has so far. This next generation honestly has me worried though.

I think we're safe.

 

[Slash]

Yeah nothing can top that haha.

Or this:

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Nothing wrong with Mustang II.. Remember Ford Probe? That originally was planned as Mustang replacement..

 

[niky]

All I'm saying is that it should keep the traits/characteristics it's known for.

Too bad it won't. A turbo four will be faster than every six cylinder Mustang except the last one.

Oh, wait... slow isn't a trait?

 

[BobbyBRAKEaNek]

Nothing wrong with Mustang II.. Remember Ford Probe? That originally was planned as Mustang replacement..

Hey, I had a 93 Probe GT.

 

[JacoJa]

Nothing wrong with Mustang II.. Remember Ford Probe? That originally was planned as Mustang replacement..

Wow now... Don't knock the Probe. They had a very forward-thinking design back in the day. 👍

 

[kikie]

So, the American Fusion is the European Mondeo?

 

[DeathSmiles]

Just to clarify, the Mustang has never been some crazy sporty car that can't be driven daily. It has always been a everyday car, that is sporty. Since it was created. That was always Ford's goal.

The fact that I have to state this is depressing.

With that said Ford has no plans to suddenly make the car not sporty. That's just stupid.

 

[Zenith]

Just to clarify, the Mustang has never been some crazy sporty car that can't be driven daily. It has always been a everyday car, that is sporty. Since it was created. That was always Ford's goal.

The fact that I have to state this is depressing.

With that said Ford has no plans to suddenly make the car not sporty. That's just stupid.

Once again, the original Mustang had nothing sporty about it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You mean besides the sporty body and sporty engines and sporty options list, taking the name from a very sporty concept car?

 

[TheCracker]

It was the 'sporty' version of the Falcon family. Like the Alfa Brera is/was to the Alfa 159 or the Scirocco is to the Golf etc etc. Same engines and running gear as its cooking brethren, but in a more stylish wrapper.

 

[DeathSmiles]

Once again, the original Mustang had nothing sporty about it.

You are joking, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang

As a Detroiter, born and raised, I'm dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge on some of the subjects desiplayed in recent months, here.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Nonetheless, it was still the sportiest car made in America, ignoring the Corvette.

 

[DeathSmiles]

Nonetheless, it was still the sportiest car made in America, ignoring the Corvette.

Indeed! The car created the pony car segment, and subsequent explosion in the 60's. Small cars, big engines.

 

[Zenith]

You mean besides the sporty body and sporty engines and sporty options list, taking the name from a very sporty concept car?

Remember that we are discussing the original 1964 1/2 Mustang, not the 66's and up.

I don't really see how a mid engines concept car is relevant to a car made of Fairlane parts. The 64-1/2 Mustang came with a 101hp six cylinder and had what was at the time a small V8 as its highest option, it wasn't even 300ci. That was far from sporty at the time.

The Mustang became a sporty car when Ford noticed the demand for a bigger engine to be put in and the success of Shelby in the racing scene. The original Mustang was about European style over substance.

You are joking, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang

As a Detroiter, born and raised, I'm dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge on some of the subjects desiplayed in recent months, here.

Ah yes, I forgot that people from Detroit are born with an encyclopedia's worth of knowledge of cars and thus automatically have greater authority on all things automotive. Something about Lake Michigan and newborns. Apparently this infallible car knowledge comes at the cost of grammar skills.

You want to talk about big engines in small cars? You're not looking for an original Mustang.

Edit:

Relevant quote:

"In 1964, when Lee Iacocca said, 'Shelby, I want you to make a sports car out of the Mustang,' the first thing I said was, 'Lee, you can't make a race horse out of a mule. I don't want to do it.' He said, 'I didn't ask you to make it; you work for me.'"

But he isn't from Detroit, what does he know?

 

[DeathSmiles]

Ah yes, I forgot that people from Detroit are born with an encyclopedia's worth of knowledge of cars and thus automatically have greater authority on all things automotive. Something about Lake Michigan and newborns. Apparently this infallible car knowledge comes at the cost of grammar skills.

You want to talk about big engines in small cars? You're not looking for an original Mustang.

Oh, so we have a Grammar-Nazi. Nice to see a throwback to 1997 still on the internet.

And the Mustang was designed from the start to be sporty, not the "fastest" car out there. Sporty =/= fast.

The small size and design invoked a sports car (with a Euro styling). It was a roadster initially, and the nice extras that could be purchased along with your nice small two-door helped further that goal. It was designed from the jump as a sports car. If you read the damn articles, you would see that for yourself.

Instead, you just want to be right, and end up not being educated about the subject at all.

I'll help you out;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)

We had a studio under Bob Maguire and in it were; Jim Darden, Ray Smith, plus an artist, Phil Clark, several modelers, and me. We drew up a 2-seater sports car in competition with the other studios, and when they saw ours - saw the blackboard with a full-sized layout and sketches- they said, 'That's it! Let's build it.' So we made a clay model, designed the details, and then built a fiberglass prototype." This car was simply a concept study rather than the final configuration, but it included a lot of the sporty, rakish flair the later showcar embodied.

The design team had been given five goals for the design of the Mustang: it would seat four, have bucket seats and a floor mounted shifter, weigh no more than 2,500 pounds and be no more than 180 inches in length, sell for less than $2,500, and have multiple power, comfort, and luxury options.

And there's tons more backing this up.

The point is the car was always referred to as a sports car, from design, to sale. It's written in the history books, and that has never changed. No matter how you view it, that's the facts.

 

[Joey D]

Ah yes, I forgot that people from Detroit are born with an encyclopedia's worth of knowledge of cars and thus automatically have greater authority on all things automotive. Something about Lake Michigan and newborns. Apparently this infallible car knowledge comes at the cost of grammar skills.

Detroit isn't anywhere near Lake Michigan

As for the Mustang being sporty? I think it was a sporty car when it was released. I mean you have to consider the other cars on the road at the time. The 64 Mustang was lighter and smaller than quite a few cars it shared the road with. I agree it was no performance car and wasn't very quick, but it was definitely sporty minded. It is kind of similar to how the first gen Miata was when it came out, not a ton of power but still fun.

It became a sporty performance minded car once Ford saw the potential.

 

[DeathSmiles]

I'd put money he'd still try and argue why he's right, despite quote's from Ford themselves stating the car was a sports car when it was designed, and initially released in 1964.

 

[Zenith]

And the Mustang was designed from the start to be sporty, not the "fastest" car out there. Sporty =/= fast.

Which is why they used four drum brakes and got most of the components from a Fairlane and Falcon.

The small size and design invoked a sports car (with a Euro styling). It was a roadster initially, and the nice extras that could be purchased along with your nice small two-door helped further that goal. It was designed from the jump as a sports car. If you read the damn articles, you would see that for yourself.

It was designed to be sporty, yes. It was also designed to have rear brake cooling vents. It ended up being built built as a slightly smaller family sedan minus a pair of doors.

Instead, you just want to be right, and end up not being educated about the subject at all.

If you are unable to fathom somebody with considerably more experience on this car having a differing opinion than your own then I would take a step back.

I'll help you out;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)

And there's tons more backing this up.

The point is the car was always referred to as a sports car, from design, to sale. It's written in the history books, and that has never changed. No matter how you view it, that's the facts.

Hmm interesting how they mostly talk about making it look sporty and every nod they make towards making the car actually go fast was thrown out for production.

Detroit isn't anywhere near Lake Michigan

As for the Mustang being sporty? I think it was a sporty car when it was released. I mean you have to consider the other cars on the road at the time. The 64 Mustang was lighter and smaller than quite a few cars it shared the road with. I agree it was no performance car and wasn't very quick, but it was definitely sporty minded. It is kind of similar to how the first gen Miata was when it came out, not a ton of power but still fun.

Four drum brakes, suspension from family sedans, a chassis lacking any effort to stiffness whatsoever, being offered primarily with a 101hp engine, 3 speed slushbox and no rev counter does not a sports car make.

It became a sporty performance minded car once Ford saw the potential.

This is what I'm saying. It was not originally a sporty car, it became one.

I'd put money he'd still try and argue why he's right, despite quote's from Ford themselves stating the car was a sports car when it was designed, and initially released in 1964.

Ford stated that the design was meant to be sporty. I'm not talking about how the designers dreamed it would be, I'm talking about how the car was. Carroll Shelby seems to agree with me. What experience do you have working the first body style of Mustang? I'd put money on none.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Other sports cars from 1964:

Austin Healey Sprite:

46bhp

Triumph TR4:

105bhp

Alfa Spider (1966):

109bhp

I could go on and on and on. I'm not even trying to argue that the Mustang was a sports car, but it was, and was intended to be a 'sporty' car from it's inception.

From Merriam-Webster, Sporty:

resembling a sports car in styling or performance

With the 260 V8, the Mustang made 165bhp. 165bhp in a car weighing 2,450lbs is about what a current Miata is. If you are judging on power to weight alone. The Miata is a sports car, right?



My RX-7 was designed from the beginning to be a sports car, and it's power to weight ratio, as stock, wasn't that good. My car also has a solid rear axle, and suspension components mostly truck derived. It's still a sports car.

 

[Joey D]

Four drum brakes, suspension from family sedans, a chassis lacking any effort to stiffness whatsoever, being offered primarily with a 101hp engine, 3 speed slushbox and no rev counter does not a sports car make.

It was 1964, automotive technology wasn't exactly stellar back then. Plus the Mustang was designed with cheapness in mind. They wanted the average person to be able to afford it so they weren't going to go crazy with stuff not from the parts bin.

Stuff that makes a sporty car today wasn't what made a sporty car 50 years ago.

This is what I'm saying. It was not originally a sporty car, it became one.

It was a sporty car though compared to other vehicles on the road, it just wasn't a performance car. Would you just prefer if I said it was designed to be a fun car?

 

[Zenith]

Other sports cars from 1964:

snip

I could go on and on and on. I'm not even trying to argue that the Mustang was a sports car, but it was, and was intended to be a 'sporty' car from it's inception.

From Merriam-Webster, Sporty:

165bhp in a car weighing 2,450lbs is about what a current Miata is. If you are judging on power to weight alone. The Miata is a sports car, right?

My RX-7 was designed from the beginning to be a sports car, and it's power to weight ratio, as stock, wasn't that good. My car also has a solid rear axle, and suspension components mostly truck derived. It's still a sports car.

I am not using power to weight as the metric for sportiness. Power to weight can be sportiness all on its own such as the case of a big block Charger or GTO, but the Miata and RX-7 get their sportiness elsewhere in the handling department. The Mustang was lacking in both departments.

It would be worth noting that all of those examples you posted run sporty suspension and are far lighter than the Mustang was.

At this point it comes down to what your interpretation of that definition is.

My interpretation of "sporty" is having enough features and design points on the car to attract drivers and to provide pleasurable, not necessarily speedy, driving dynamics.

Having driven a stock 1st body style Mustang of similar setup as a 1964-1/2 (both with an I6 and V8) on windy roads, around town, and on a track and having worked on the components of that car that contribute towards the car's dynamics, I feel qualified to say that the original Mustang is far from offering a sporty experience.

If your interpretation of "sporty" is grounded in looks, then the 1964-1/2 Mustang is sporty.

According to the MW, the original Mustang was sporty because of that handy "or". However, I'd argue that there are dozens of cars that resemble a sports car in style that you would hesitate to call sporty cars. A Kia Sportage resembles a sports car. Does that make it sporty? According to the dictionary it does.

It was 1964, automotive technology wasn't exactly stellar back then. Plus the Mustang was designed with cheapness in mind. They wanted the average person to be able to afford it so they weren't going to go crazy with stuff not from the parts bin.

Stuff that makes a sporty car today wasn't what made a sporty car 50 years ago.

I know. I point back to the fact that even for 60's the Mustang's driving experience and technology was particularly unsporty.

It was a sporty car though compared to other vehicles on the road, it just wasn't a performance car. Would you just prefer if I said it was designed to be a fun car?

Fun would work. This goes back to the definition section in my post above. According to MW, a car is sporty if it resembles a sports car in style or performance. The Mustang certainly resembles a sports car in style, possibly in performance too depending on your standards. In my experience, the early, early Mustangs were basically family sedans that had undergone some plastic surgery to appeal to a younger audience. It wasn't until later that they developed the personality we commonly think of.

 

[DeathSmiles]

So, you a pretty much saying by everyone's definition but your own, it was a sports car (unexceptional performance aside)?

 

[Zenith]

So, you a pretty much saying by everyone's definition but your own, it was a sports car (unexceptional performance aside)?

By the dictionary definition and several people who, to my knowledge, have never worked on nor driven an original Mustang or similar, yes. It's well known that using dictionary definitions in a more specialized discussion has various pitfalls, such as your now sporty Kia Crossover. I can only think of a few cars that escape the "sporty" definition if you choose to use the general dictionary definition in this sort of discussion. Geo Metro? Nah, power to weight is too high.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I would argue that, barring the Corvette, the Mustang was the most fun American car to drive in 1964. You need to place your own experience within the context of early 60's American cars. The Mustang really was the Miata of it's day. The next 'sportiest' car in the lineup would have been the Thunderbird, but that wasn't even close by 1964.

First gen Mustangs remain very light with reasonably small proportions and adequate power. The fact that they begun being raced almost immediately shows that they did have sporting pretensions.

In fact a Mustang won it's class in the 1964 Tour De France Automobile, barely a few months after the car's release. This was before Shelby and further competition development.

Sure the chassis has earth worm levels of squirminess, but so too did the subsequent generations. Up until 2004, the Mustang was still using the Fox platform, which lacked a structural center section. Advanced structural technology has never really been a Mustang hallmark, even on the new ones.

(My experience: 1967 Mustang Coupe that me and my brother have been gradually building for the past decade. I've also owned a 1991 Mustang. Been around and worked on countless others. Used to be a big Mustang guy, but for the above reasons [chassis floppyness mostly] I have sought other vehicles...)

edit: Your sportage point is invalid. This doesn't look like a sports car anymore than it performs like one. Really stretching on that claim...

 

[DeathSmiles]

By the dictionary definition and several people who, to my knowledge, have never worked on nor driven an original Mustang or similar, yes.

For the record, I previously owned 2 1965 Mustangs. Both Coupes.

Also, the car was sportier than most other American made cars at the time, and not nearly as big and heavy.

But seriously, you are still clawing at the walls trying to prove a null point, so I don't care.

The Mustang was, and has always been a sports car.

 

[Keef]

My definition of a "sports car":

1. Two doors
2. Not front-wheel drive
3. Two useable seats for driver and passenger
4. Not a truck

That's my definition of a sports car. NSX? Sports car. Austin Healey? Sports car. Miata? Sports car. RX7? Sports car. Supra? Sports car. Mercedes SLK? Sports car. BMW Z3/Z4? Sports cars. Porsche 911/Boxster/Cayman? Sports cars.

E30/E36/E46/most M3s ever made? Not sports cars, but "sporty" grand touring cars. RX8? Not a sports car. Fiat 500 Abarth? Not a sports car. Focus ST? Not a sports car. Mitsubishi Evo? Not a sports car. Honda Civic Si? Integra Type R? Toyota Celica? AE86?

Mustang? Not a sports car. A sporty grand tourer with room in the back to bring friends. Never in its history has it been designed to be a sports car, but a sporty car with a little extra. Perhaps that's why it and cars like it have sold so well, because they're fun like sports cars but somewhat versatile and practical.

 

[DeathSmiles]

My definition of a "sports car":

1. Two doors
2. Not front-wheel drive
3. Two useable seats for driver and passenger
4. Not a truck

That's my definition of a sports car. NSX? Sports car. Austin Healey? Sports car. Miata? Sports car. RX7? Sports car. Supra? Sports car. Mercedes SLK? Sports car. BMW Z3/Z4? Sports cars. Porsche 911/Boxster/Cayman? Sports cars.

E30/E36/E46/most M3s ever made? Not sports cars, but "sporty" grand touring cars. RX8? Not a sports car. Fiat 500 Abarth? Not a sports car. Focus ST? Not a sports car. Mitsubishi Evo? Not a sports car. Honda Civic Si? Integra Type R? Toyota Celica? AE86?

Mustang? Not a sports car. A sporty grand tourer with room in the back to bring friends. Never in its history has it been designed to be a sports car, but a sporty car with a little extra. Perhaps that's why it and cars like it have sold so well, because they're fun like sports cars but somewhat versatile and practical.

I can list a million reasons why this makes no sense, but you are entitled to your own views and opinions, regardless of what the actual definitions dictate.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

My definition of a "sports car":

1. Two doors
2. Not front-wheel drive
3. Two useable seats for driver and passenger
4. Not a truck

That's my definition of a sports car. NSX? Sports car. Austin Healey? Sports car. Miata? Sports car. RX7? Sports car. Supra? Sports car. Mercedes SLK? Sports car. BMW Z3/Z4? Sports cars. Porsche 911/Boxster/Cayman? Sports cars.

E30/E36/E46/most M3s ever made? Not sports cars, but "sporty" grand touring cars. RX8? Not a sports car. Fiat 500 Abarth? Not a sports car. Focus ST? Not a sports car. Mitsubishi Evo? Not a sports car. Honda Civic Si? Integra Type R? Toyota Celica? AE86?

Mustang? Not a sports car. A sporty grand tourer with room in the back to bring friends. Never in its history has it been designed to be a sports car, but a sporty car with a little extra. Perhaps that's why it and cars like it have sold so well, because they're fun like sports cars but somewhat versatile and practical.

Porsche 911?
Lotus Evora?
Hyundai Genesis?
Subaru BRZ?
Japanese Market RX-7? (4 seats)
Toyota Supra? (4 seats)

I'm about 6 feet tall and can fit in the Evora, Genesis, BR-Z, and Supra just as well as a Mustang. Mustang rear seats aren't exactly huge.

I mean, I can't say I don't disagree with the Mustang not being a sports car. But there are plenty of sports cars with 4 'usable' seats.