Talk:Ford Mustang/Archive 1

message: There is an article at Ford Mustang SSP that, quite simply, doesn't merit its own page. The info from that article could easily be incorporated into the main Mustang article, where it belongs. Thoughts? ⇒ BRossow T/C 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merger 

message: * Merge per my own nom. ⇒ BRossow T/C 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Don't Merge arguement-
The Mustang article itself is long and very incomplete in some instances. More general info is needed, not more specific info like this article mentioned provides. I feel it doesn't hurt to link it off to another subarticle, otherwise what is the point of a Shelby, Mach 1, or Cobra article? Mustang can be general, focusing on the general history of it, and if people get interested in Mach 1 when they see a small entry on it, they can click it and get alot more detail on it. Same with the special service mustangs, Cobra, ect. Feedloadr 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The 1971-1973 Mustangs are bigger and heavier than the previous ones but they are still the first generation and should not be mixed with the small fuel efficient Mustangs from the second generation. Should this be corrected? Chadon 9:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The next generation 

message: * I changed your hostile edit. As we keep hearing, (blah blah 350Z, S2000, etc.), Mustang is not a sports car. Back in the day it would have been classified as a "personal luxury car". These days that categorization I think still holds. We would call it now a Grand Touring car. Sporty car is waaaay off. That designation is used for the hot hatches like the Volkswagen GTI and Acura RSX. The automotive press puts this car into "GT and Sports Cars" I think a good comprmise would be to call it a sporty coupe/performance car, to covere the whole model range from mom's V6 convertible to Uncle Chuck's Shelby Cobra. CJ DUB 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dude I own one. It is for sure a Grand Touring or Performance car. V6/I6 model is a sporty coupe. Even Carroll Shelby never called it a sports car. I love this car but that is stretching it a bit. Anyway, pure sporst cars are lame and not practical. CJ DUB 06:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its a known as a GT car or performance car

message: Shouldn't "Mustang Sally" be mentioned in the article?  That is what I like best about the Mustang.--David R. Ingham 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song 

message: The editor of Motor Trend sent an (original) Mustang to one of the Italian designers to have the body re-done in the same theme.
An editor of Road and Track said that one less visually oriented might have sent it to England to have its suspension worked on.  (The question of whether it is a sports car reminded me.)--David R. Ingham 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the '64-5, it needed both.  Trekphiler 09:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdote 

message: the aspect ratio on this pic is pretty screwy. Gzuckier 02:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  gt350r pic 

message: The article states:
:Overall length of the Mustang and Falcon was identical, at 181.6 in (4613 mm), although the Mustang's wheelbase, at 108 in (2743 mm), was slightly shorter. With an overall width of 68.2 in (1732 mm), it was 3.4 in (86 mm) narrower, although wheel track was nearly identical.
and
:...the Mustang's body shell was completely different from the Falcon's, sporting a longer wheelbase, wider track, lower seating position and overall height...
So the Mustang managed the impressive feat of having both a longer and shorter wheelbase, and a wider but narrower track. I hope it received an award for excellence in engineering as well as design! --Jumbo 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch comparisons Falcon and Mustang 

message: This troubles me:
:"not as expensive as a Corvette, but still a good car."
It strikes me as opinion, N fact. Good how? Who says so? Might do with comparing to Corvette: both started as lo$ projects on crude chassis with "sporty" aspirations, & grew into cult cars.  Trekphiler 08:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: In '60s, BION, Ford offered skirts for the 'stang. And only 700 '70 GT500s were built.  Trekphiler 09:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factoids 

message: Will somebody admit that the Ford Mustang once carried a four cylinder engine?  And what year was it?
:1974-1993. Pretty short production run *snicker*
::Yes, the Mustang had a 2.3 liter four cylinder engine during those years. Of particular note is the SVO Mustang produced in 1984-1986.  With it's turbocharged and intercooled four cylinder, it was producing 205 hp and 240 ft/lb torque the year that it was removed from the Mustang line-up. Sales were just too slow compared to the v8 model. The SVO was truly a design ahead of it's time... Severisth 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: four cylinder

message: I am calling into question the statement made by user 66.213.21.32. That user stated:  However, Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords were able to coax low-12 second performances out of it, with trap speeds of over 117mph.  What issue of the magazine was this in?  What were the circumstances?  Was the car in stock form?  Where there further mods made on it?  I am deleting the statement for now as this is highly questionable.  I find low 12's for a car that has done at the very best a 12.9 unbelieveable.  Most test from the various magazines usually have a couple of tenths of a second difference between them.  This statment would have some believe a drop of nearly a second. FrankWilliams 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "At best"? Hahah. C/D, Road and Track, MT suck at real racing. This is the most recent issue of MM&FF. Car is completely stock, right down to the gas grade and tires. They turned the traction control off. They used a guy who knows how to drive. They remarked in the article that the car is so easy to launch with traction control, that even a neophyte could roll of 12.9 times, just like they got in those 'other' magzines, hahaha. I can find the temp, humidity and everything tonight. I believe humidity was in the 30s and temp was around 68 degrees. CJ DUB 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a thought: C/D MT and R&T are ALL biased in favour of advertizing dollar. Fact. You should realize that MM&FF does not run any automobile ads, other than kit cars, unlike those other magazines. In addition, MM&FF are extremely critical of Ford products. They expect the best from the company, and are harsh when they don't deliver. Read it, they remarked that Ford should be ashamed of the weight of the new GT500, and they are not happy. These were the guys who brought the meagre hp numbers of the 1999 Cobra into the media, and did extensive testing to the 2001 Cobra to confirm the updates and hp rating by Ford. Which reminds me, another difference is that the readers of MM&FF will actually go and check the numbers they are given by the mag. How'd that look if they were off? Why not throw out the other sources not based on bias, but based on poor experimentation; an equally good reason to chuck outliers? CJ DUB 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS, how can a watch be biased? They reported all of their times. 12.257s was the best of the times. The average for all of the runs was under 12.7, since this was their worst run. CJ DUB 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GT500 Specs

message: The article states that the aftermarket was scarce for V6 mustangs before the S-197 models, and that is partially accurate for models using the Essex 90 degree V6, which didn't recieve anything helpful until the split-port engines were introduced. However, the V6 in the S-197 platform Mustang is the Cologne V6 and enjoyed quite a bit of aftermarket support before the Mustang, from it's use in Explorers and the high-performance models of the Ford Ranger. --Mfree 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-197 V6 Mustangs and the aftermarket 

message: I'm not sure if it should be mentioned but the Mustang II being "based" off the pinto is tenuous; The article does say that the basis is far less than the original mustang vs falcon, but in truth the only shared chassis component between the mustang II and the pinto is, if I remember correctly, the passenger floorboard. --Mfree 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustang II and Pinto ties 

message: The 1980 mustangs are getting old!
--Poinana9284728 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absotively! Gzuckier 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 mustangs 

message: Now, I'm not really talking about the rear-engined 2-seat V4 Mustang I or the rear-engined 2-seat Mustang prototype made in 1969, what I'm talking about is the '65 coupe produced with a Curtiss-Wright Wankel engine. Does anyone have further info on that?
There was also quite a lot of talk about independent rear suspension when the GT350 program was in place but didn't go far, the chassis wasn't really suitable for that layout.
There were a good few aftermarket retractable hardtop kits out on the market by '68. 
If anyone thinks those are suitable leads for article addition, I'd be happy to do further research.--Mfree 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absotively! Gzuckier 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental models

message: "The new Mustang was an immediate sales success for Ford—half of all "sports" cars sold in the United States are now Mustangs"
this line seems to be an unfounded overstatement.  is there any proof of this claim? --Cirilobeto 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales overstatement 

message: The Looking Ahead section has no information related to the future.  It is just a bunch of random facts about the history of the Mustang that can very well be integrated into other sections.  Looking Ahead should be about the next generation mustangs, the 2008 MY, what the new Cyclone engine will be like, etc.
If no one else edits it, I will, but I admit I don't know very much about the new stuff.
Kcurley 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Looking Ahead" misnamed 

message: I think it is time to review the featured status of the article. It has been two years since it became a Featured article, and it seems that the article not only expanded, but degraded its quality (just look at that amount of external links). Does anyone agree? -- ReyBrujo 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured status review 

message: As it stands, it is very difficult to get information from this article. Much of the information seems randomly littered throughout the rather large and unwieldy blocks of text. As of yesterday, I have marked this article for cleanup.Aquaseafoam 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Should information about the S281 (or Saleen Mustangs in general) be put under this article, or should there a new article made for it? Mustang6172 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saleen S281

message: Lets bring out some specifics on what can be done to make this section better instead of marking and leaving it be.
Sign your comments please. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SN-95 

message: That is better than "sports car", but there were six cylinder versions of the original Mustang, and there was almost nothing mechanically unique about it.  It is a compact car with fancy stylish body work and a speed image.  David R. Ingham 05:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A perfect definition of the pony car category. Gzuckier 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Muscle Car"? 

message: Can someone who is skilled in text and photo formatting fix the issues with the 3 pictures (1st Mustang, Shelby Mustang and 65 Fastback) in the sections previous to "The Mustang Grows Up"?  The pictures don't seem to be anchored, and when using the Firefox browser the pictures all appear in the "...grows up" section, and when window is resized, the pictures float around and interfere with text. In Internet Explorer, the pictures appear in the correct section, but there is a huge section of blank white space at the beginning of "The Mustang Grows Up" section. Nne3jxc 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos & The Mustang Grows Up section 

message: I attempted to revert some vandalism but due to a browser crash did more harm than good.  I am afraid to attempt to repair it again due to the fact I might do even more harm. StartX 05:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to fix the damage my browser caused. StartX 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted to revert Vandalism 

message: I know the mustang 2 wasn't the greatest car on the planet and that it's not a real or true mustang or whatever, HOWEVER it does warrant inclusion in this article because it was offically fords mustang in the mid-late 70's.  Could someone upload a picture please...64.230.106.240 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mustang 2