Not really a rant, more of a WTF?.
What is the big deal with the Mustang as a vehicle?
Old ones - look really quite amazingly boring, performance unknown but probably highly variable.
80s and 90s ones - look like Escorts only duller, V8s go fast, others just suck completely.
New ones - anything not a V8 will get totally blown off the road by my standard 1.6 Civic without me even trying. The new Mustang tries very hard to look like a racer, the Civic just looks like a car.
So, what am I missing here? I’m not a car nut, I just don’t understand why the Mustang deserves any kind of mystique or fame at all, as it seems to be nothing more than a heavily-worshipped Festiva with go-faster styling.
Seems to be a penis-substitute and not much else.
Early Mustangs were pretty cool, from a styling standpoint…for their day.
The Mustang went in the toilet around 1971, and it stayed their until the late 80’s, when ironically, performance sved it, not looks.
I owned a 1995 GT for three years, and learned that Mustangs are all about performance and buying more performance in the aftermarket. Perhaps no car in the modern era was so hot-roddable. Many legal mods and many manufacturers of parts for them (For the GT).
Mustangs look sporty, drive okay, and are pretty cheap. I see V6’s everywhere, with fake scoops and bogus looks. They are so darn easy to buy.
And remember, most Mustang buyers are in the 2 door and 4 cylinder market, so when a salesman shows them a V6 for the same cash or less than a Civic, it seems like an upgrade! Plus it looks sporty…to dopey people, which is nearly everyone that would consider the V6, when the GT is still a bargain.
Mustangs? Nice little run in the 60’s, a little performace boost in the late 80’s.
I don’t get it.
Philster has it pretty well nailed.
The early Mustangs were relatively cheap, attractively styled (yes, that’s subjective, but millions of people through the years have found them attractive), offered decent performance, and had a long list of options to choose from so even though everybody and his brother bought a Mustang in '65 and '66 you could feel like yours was unique. They also started the whole pony car trend - without the Mustang there would have been no Camaro, Firebird, Barracuda, etc.
There’s also the mystique of certain rare models, the Boss and Shelby Mustangs, and the involvement in the glory days of late-60’s muscle cars.
So part of the attraction is plain old nostalgia for simpler times, when gas was cheap and a V-8 was the cure to many of life’s problems.
Pretty much the entire decade of the 70’s and into the early 80’s the Mustang just sucked. Styling went from land-yacht huge to Pinto-with-side-scoops, neither of which was a good choice, and performance went right into the toilet. I honestly can’t figure out why anyone bought Mustangs during this time period.
Then in the 80’s Mustang performance came back in a big way. For a number of years the only other American-made car that could outrun a Mustang was the Corvette, and even then the Corvette driver had to know what he was doing. Plus there was (and still is) a huge aftermarket for performance pieces for the old 5 liter engine, so if the stock version wasn’t enough you could easily bolt on some horsepower. From a bang-for-the-buck perspective a mid to late 80’s Mustang just couldn’t be beat.
And now? Well, the Mustang has lost a little in performance (unless you can somehow get your hands on a R model Cobra, or want to shell out the bucks for a Saleen) but still isn’t bad if you go with the V-8. And performance mods are more readily available for this car than nearly any other. The styling is OK, although I personally prefer the previous version.
But it’s basically just a sort of sporty car with so-so looks. One of many you could choose from. So why do people still buy them, still admire them, etc? A little because of their performance potential, but largely because of their heritage. That’s really it, plain and simple.
I don’t know why, but I do. The first very cool car I ever drove was a 1988 Mustang GT and I took it about 90 miles away from home doing about 100-110 the whole way blasting the Top Gun soundtrack with a friend. What a rush is all I can say.
Anyway, if I had one of these:
http://www.shelbyamerican.com/cobra/index.html
I swear to God I would probably hump the gearshift daily. I just fucking love it, that’s all there is to it.
Zette 
I’ve got a 66 convertible, and I’ve never driven anything that was so much plain old fun. It looks cool - not big-scary-American-fins, but not icky 70’s or boxy 80’s either, mine runs very well, it handles like a dream, you can get parts for it, unlike lots of classic sports cars, and performance on the V8 models is great. Granted, I never drove any sports car of similar vintage, but I’ve driven 90’s era Mustangs and I tell you, the 66 is much, much more fun, and more comfortable. It’s quite a bit more comfortable than my dad’s '96 Jaguar, actually. Especially for whoever has to sit in the back. I’m just learning how to work on it, but there’s little on this car that I couldn’t, given the appropriate parts and equipment, do myself.
But the reason why people really like them, I think, is that they’ve absorbed a certain amount of American Dreamish mystique. Which isn’t something I usually go in for, but it’s awfully charming in a car. Somebody asked me once why I wanted one when I could have bought something new, and I said, “You know that girl next door, the really hot one, who fixes her own car but especially washes it, in a white t-shirt? The really cool one? I wanna be her.” Okay, so the only men I’ve attracted with the car are middle aged and married. So what? The car’s for me.
Dude, the only thing that a Civic will blow off the road is a kid on a tricycle. And even then it needs a slight decline in order to gain momentum.
Considering half the people I know that are obsessed with Mustangs sport the opposite equipment…
My thoughts are with Spoofe on this, aren’t Civics just compact econo cars?
One of the world’s silliest looking things is a Civic rice burner dressed up as a sports car.
I also have an irrational love for them. I’ve had three (plain-Jane '65 notchback with a straight six, '65 fastback with a 289, and the first new car I ever owned was an '87 GT). Sadly I am currently without one. I was actively shopping for one but bought a house instead, which put the purchase back on hold. However I soon hope to be back in the market, with a little luck (if not this summer, then sometime next year).
What I really want: a '65 fastback factory GT, with the K-code motor and a pony interior, styled steel wheels, completely rust-free and in excellent condition. Other options (the 8-track, luggage rack, air, etc.) are nice but not a requirement either way.
What I’ll probably get: a '65 or '66 convertible with any variety of 289 with a rock-solid body. Other desirable items that it will either have or I’ll add over time: a 4-speed (or maybe a new 5-speed, if I have to replace the transmission anyway), upgrade the engine to at least A-code specs, install a “pony” interior, add most of the GT equipment group (at least the grill lights, exhaust, and disk brakes), and styled steel wheels.
So anybody got one these for sale, cheap?
You know, Spoofe, I tried to go find some information on this to bust his balls yesterday, and I was VERY surprised to see that the 0-60 time for the 3.8 V6 Mustang was 9.9 seconds. After I saw that, It’s possible that a little civic might give it a run. Maybe. I couldn’t find any 0-60 times for a civic.
9.9 secinds for the Mustang? Can that be right? What is it doing with that engine if it takes that long?
I have a pal who has a candy-apple red, fully restored 66 (I think) convertible, fully restored Mustang. They just had their second child and his wife is making him get rid of it for a Minivan.
Can we please have a moment of silence for ol’ Harry?
Thank you.
That said, I’ve ALWAYS held that the pinnacle of american automobile design was the 66 Mustang. Though I personally like the hardtop Mrs Chance is partial to anything convertible.
Up until 98(I think) The 3.8 was only putting out about 140-150 HP. Which is probably when that number was set(If I had to guess from memeory, I’d say 9.9 would be an automatic, with a manual a little faster.) in 99 and afte,r the 3.8 has reworked airflow putting out 190ish HP(which by the way is the only non V-8 made put in a Mustang now, so I’d be interested to see a stock 1.6 civic beat it) . I think times are probably low 7s to 60.
SPOOFE, you beat me to it.
We have a '00 Mustang, and it hauls ass. Both in quickness and speed, it does a great job.
Of course, it doesn’t hold a candle to my previous car, a '93 Lincoln Mark VIII. Don’t laugh, the engine in this thing was bigger than our whole Mustang, and it was dangerously fast. Had all the bells and whistles too, I will miss it forever (some idiot totalled it). Shame that Lincoln stopped making them, but the price was very high, and most people who could afford them weren’t into speed- they were more the big Cadi type. I inherited mine from my Grandpa, who really had no business driving it at his age, but he bragged that he could get to Vegas with his girlfriend in no time!
A 2001 Honda Civic EX does 0-60 in 8.4 seconds.
A 2000 Ford Mustang (V-6, doesn’t specify coupe or convertible) does 0-60 in 7.0 seconds.
A 1999 Ford Mustang GT Coupe does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.
A 1999 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am Coupe does 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.
A 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 does 0-60 in 4.3 seconds.
Source: http://www.car-stats.com.
I have a 2001 T/A with 5 more rated horsepower than the 1999 model (310hp vs. 305hp). A 2001 Mustang GT is rated at 260hp, for comparison sake. I like to see the new Mustang’s front end (w/ the cheesy non-functional hood & side scoops) in my rearview mirror.
Source: http://www.caranddriver.com
But to be honest, these are all magazine racer times. If cars are within .2 to .3 seconds of each other, it really depends on skill of the driver. It also depends upon transmission type (manual vs. automatic).
:: wipes away a tear and observes a moment of silence ::
That is the only car I ever wanted and I’ve never found one for sale anywhere near enough to me to go get.
I think I may have to go light a candle for your friend.
So, a 2001 Civic could beat a '98 V6 Mustang, 0-60 (assuming what wolfman says is true).
[Hank Hill]
What’n the hell?
[/Hank Hill]
A 3.8L V6 producing 140HP…Whoever designed this engine should be shot.
Hey, he’s selling it for 28K. I can’t buy it because it just wouldn’t be right. Like if I took his wife and moved in next door. Nothing short of cruel, there.
Which is probably why my best friend’s Mustang drives so nicely. Hers is a '99 V6 convertible… and even with four people packed into it, it has excellent pickup and handling.
I’ve been in Civics… those things have to strain to get over speedbumps.
<smartass hijack>
Zette…I hope if ya DO get one, you at least get an appropriate aftermarket shift knob…
</smartass hijack>
<runs for the door, ducking and weaving>