RC10Talk - The Net's Largest Vintage R/C Community

I like it a lot, especially the convertible. I would consider it.

I'm more of a Camaro guy personally, but I also do like Mustangs. And I don't mind this redo. Agreed IRS is SO overdue, but it sounds like they are on the right track.

I'm getting a convertible! And the car is bad ass! I have an '06 GT now and it will be hard to let her go, but I think she is getting traded in.

Worst for me is a toss up between the mustang 2 which looked like a stretched out Pinto to me. On top of that they made a car called a "King Cobra" and they put all that crap on it to spruce it up, YACK!... The other is that SVO pile o crap! That thing was a joke and I had a '86 Maclaren Capri 5.0 that had zero problems waxing those hurting 4 banger turbo SVO's... And they were hurting! Badly! Had a friend that had one and we traded cars to see the difference and after about 5 minutes of driving his pile I was over it.. After 5 minutes of him driving my car, The very next day he went and traded that POS on a Mustang GT and I never saw a more happy person ever!

The latest car... Is nice and I like it a lot... I thought there would be a more drastic change to the look of the car which disappointed me a little and I'm saddened they kind of erased the hockey sticks on the side, but over all I think this is ten times better than the 2014. The back is the best part and the front is a little fusion-esque... But I like it too. That was to be given anyway because Ford put the same people that designed the Fusion on this project. I hated the '10 when it came out, but it grew on me and I was not much of a fan of basically any of the renditions of this car that came out either... But when the rolled it out on GMA yesterday, I knew it was over!

Yep, I got some man love going on ^^, Sorry!

Liking the new body style even though I'm a Fox body type of guy....

I love my 70 Mach 1.

I do believe the true name for the new Mustang is the Ford Fusion Coupe.
If Ford wants to do things right they should just re-re the 66 fastback mustang GT.

askbob wrote:Liking the new body style even though I'm a Fox body type of guy....

x2 ...it's starting to grow on me.

GreenHell wrote:x2 ...it's starting to grow on me.

X3

There's nothing like anything between 65 and 70, being partial to 67 myself. You go to any MCA event these days and it's all new stuff. Kinda sickening to me to be honest. I'd prefer not to go to a car show and see a commerical for "Bolt-On-USA" every 10 feet (no offense intended to any newer Mustang owners on the board).

the look is different but i bet that is for better wind resistance. if that equals better mpg thats always good to hear.. any one else happy to see a 4 cl option? dont know all the specs but 310hp ,stick,and like 30mpg (not really sure mpg) sounds cool ...

JPAE07 wrote:I love my 70 Mach 1.

I do believe the true name for the new Mustang is the Ford Fusion Coupe.
If Ford wants to do things right they should just re-re the 66 fastback mustang GT.

70 Mach 1 is a beautiful car. Post a pic of it. I agree ^^^ with that .

Imo it's just okay. Just like all the other "retro" cars. I wouldn't call them ugly, but I wouldn't call them pretty either. I for one wish this retro craze would just go away. The only thing I see here worth celebrating its the independent rear end. But then again, they are about 20 years behind the curve on that one, so not sure of it really calls for a celebration.

justinspeed79 wrote:The only thing I see here worth celebrating its the independent rear end. But then again, they are about 20 years behind the curve on that one

Agreed on that one. Heck we built 5 prototypes back somewhere around 2003 that was supposed to be put in the 2005 SVT Cobra (then make to the reg mustang a few years after) that ended up getting canned by the beancounters because of cost. Just took 10 years and not 3 as originally planned.

Current rumors are 35mpg for the I4.

- Limestang

longboardnj wrote:the look is different but i bet that is for better wind resistance. if that equals better mpg thats always good to hear.. any one else happy to see a 4 cl option? dont know all the specs but 310hp ,stick,and like 30mpg (not really sure mpg) sounds cool ...

That would be my first choice. 4 cylinder turbo with a manual = lighter, better balanced, more efficient, cleaner. Funny how so many people complain about the "retro" styling, but not the antique engine configurations.

markbt73 wrote:

longboardnj wrote:the look is different but i bet that is for better wind resistance. if that equals better mpg thats always good to hear.. any one else happy to see a 4 cl option? dont know all the specs but 310hp ,stick,and like 30mpg (not really sure mpg) sounds cool ...

That would be my first choice. 4 cylinder turbo with a manual = lighter, better balanced, more efficient, cleaner. Funny how so many people complain about the "retro" styling, but not the antique engine configurations.

Don't forget less durable. High-revving, low-cube motors have a shorter lifespan than the opposite. You can't have it all.

Engines these days last so long, does it really matter?