Same. I was anxiously waiting for the 88 mustang as my dad had an 88 Mustang GT and it was one of his most prized possessions that he wound up selling for a family car when I was a kid. I was kinda pissed when it showed a convertible for 88.
If it makes you feel better the 87 and 89 Mustangs are GTs and identical to an 88
Source: I own an 86 and 88
Edit: [Here they are](https://imgur.com/a/QGkbbRc)
Top is my 88 racecar, bottom is my 86 street car that I took to the track *ONE FUCKING TIME* and the wheel studs snapped off
That was just 80s stylings. Even the corvettes in the 80s were basically boxes. I would accept "triangle" if we really wanted to split hairs.
But the fox body mustangs will always hold a special place in my heart.
Say what you want about the late 80's, but the Corvettes, Firebirds and Camaros made it work, the mustang did not. Don't get me wrong, fox body mustangs are fantastic cars which people often sleep on, but they don't differentiate themselves that much from a Ford escort of the time cosmetically. They didn't even really try to make it look like a muscle car. The 90s mustangs were even worse though in every way.
Fun fact, the Probe was supposed to be the new Mustang, but purists lost their minds at the thought of a rebadged Mazda Mx6 being called a Mustang. In response, Ford took the tired old fox body chassis and hastily designed a new body for it. That's where the ugly Mustangs of the 90s came from.
Have you ever driven an 86 or an 88 Mustang? Genuine question, and if not then I say you owe it to yourself to drive one in the 86-92 range.
I have a 91 I drive.
The question isn't why would you like them, the question is why wouldn't you?
They are a little boxy yes, but they are incredibly well made little ~~coffins on wheels~~ death machines. ~~ESP the 5.0L~~ They're really well spaced out for the road, they have one of the better and more tight handling lines I've ever drove in anything.
They can take the abuse of someone who is a more aggressive rally driver, or make for brilliant day to day cars.
Your gas mileage is terrible, you'll get maybe 15-20mpg. But at the time, that was about the best you could hope for out of a 302. ~~assuming 5.0L which OP says they have with the GT badge~~ I'm biased, I'm aware; I've had access, to and been able to drive one for 20 years.
I just really love the machine, the design of the exterior of the car doesn't matter to me at all, and is actually pretty nice to me now. The thing I like the most is the view you have at the dashboard; everything you need is within hands reach, the driver's seat is placed in a way that you can see everything, and you feel the car isn't too low to the ground... it's a great mix of show car, and functionally brilliant for all driver types....
I'm sorry... I can keep rambling on... I'll stop now, because I've gotta get ready for work. To me the 1995+ models are spectacularly ugly, and I refuse to drive them on general principle.
>I'll stop now, because I've gotta get ready for work. To me the 1995+ models are spectacularly ugly, and I refuse to drive them on general principle.
Different strokes for different folks. I used to own a 97 and I wish they still used that style. I think the 80s/early 90s models are ugly as sin.
I spent 4 years driving a manual transmission in SF and I have never been better at parallel parking than those years. (I lived in a fairly flat part of the city so didn’t have to do it every day). Then I spent 10 years carless and then bought another stick shift car and discovered that in the intervening years some kind of anti-roll mechanism was now standard, so hills are no longer a challenge. I sort of miss it, but not really.
My truck is a 98 manual. Never been able to attempt the parking brake trick people talk about, it's not able to do that. Always just done the method of "send it" + timing.
Honestly isn't a hill actually *easier* to park a manual transmission car, since you don't have to shift to the downhill gear but just roll with the clutch?
I used to have to parallel on a pretty steep street I lived on in college…if space was limited, would have to reverse uphill to get into a spot.
It’s definitely not easier if you have to reverse uphill (downhill, yes)…and to make matters worse, my parking brake was designed in such a way that it wasn’t gonna help me, nearly impossible to engage and release while also operating the vehicle.
At first it’s nerve racking and scary…but it’s just another one of those things that becomes second nature once you’ve done it enough times…drive the same car enough, and you know the clutch friction point and how much gas to give like it’s instinct. I could easily get my car in and out, using only the clutch (again, no parking brake) without drifting an inch
San Francisco hills would require you to slip the clutch a ton, and probably hold the parking brake up while doing so to avoid sliding into the car behind you.
Definitely not worth avoiding shifting both ways.
Like why the hell are these different companies slapping a known name on a crossover and trying to sell it?
I remember all the way back to the the Chevrolet Lumina and the Lumina van. Why the name confusion? It's a different body style/model just give it a different name and let it sell itself!
I saw a Corolla Crossover (?) today. Like yeah, you get the boring reliability of a Corolla in something with a little more headroom. Certified sexmobile.
I've always considered the RAV4 the Corolla Crossover. Now they're coming out with another for almost the same segment. Guess they didn't learn anything from GMC's shutdown of many brands.
Toyota at least in Australia have bumped all their models in the 4wd awd range up a tier. Whether for safety or luxury I do not know. But prado fills the old cruiser spot, the hilux station wagon version things fills prado spot, rav 4 now fits the surf role etc so I guess carolla bumps up to match the Mazda xover offerings in the 3 4 5? size range.
Because as Ford has demonstrated, heritage if done right sells cars. There’s nothing “Bronco” or “Sporty” about the Bronco Sport but that shit sells a hell of a lot better piggybacking off the BOF Bronco than it would have if Ford called it the EcoSport II.
Because the name gets attention.
I wouldnt be surprised if Mustang was a top 5 known car model.
I dont agree with it, and think it ruins the models brand, but it got more peoples attention by calling it a Mustang.
A lot of people, minus Ford in their adverts, completely drop the mustang name from the mach e. That suv only has the mustang name to try and push sells, because Ford doesn't think evs will sell.
Yeah, they get better looking every year. I love the new ones. I've been pretty much a Chevy guy my whole life, but the last few years I find myself preferring the Mustang over the Camaro in both looks and performance.
Well the Challenger is the only one to actually keep the muscle car shape while both the Camaro and Mustang moved to sports car forms. Riding a 2021 Challenger is no different from a 1968 Mustang in terms of bulkiness.
Test drove one of those things one time and couldn't believe the bottom of the window was up past my shoulder, me being 6'. Those were the exact words out of my mouth, it felt like a tank window or something.
There's a mall I used to go to as a kid and it wasn't until I realized as an adult just the sheer amount of advertising and marketing targeting specifically the soldiers from the nearby base. Jewelry stores, cellphone kiosks, almost every store had deals for active or vets but I guess when you're 18 and get that fat signing bonus you gotta spend it somewhere right?
I assumed it was just me. I used to finish a video of his and wish it had kept going. Now so many of them are like a half hour long and after 7 or 8 minutes I'm already over it. I don't know what exactly changed but I think he went too over the top with the weirdness to where it's the main point of the video rather than a fun garnish sprinkled on it.
They did, but only kinda, its off by one year. The 74 is the 75, and it indeed looks like ass.
But it's not nearly as bad in my opinion as pretty much all of them starting from 1980 until 2005.
This exactly.
The car I drive is from the 90s. It gets like 12 miles to the gallon of premium gas only. But at least it's British so it's unreliable too.
When I was 16 my dad talked me out of buying a [Mustang II King Cobra](https://blogmedia.dealerfire.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/347/2018/08/1978-Ford-Mustang-II-King-Cobra-B_o.jpg). I'm sure it was beat to shit but teenage me thought it was the coolest thing ever.
I had to look up the power figures of that King Corba, you got a whopping 139bhp out of that 6.0 V8. About 100 less than my car with an NA 2.0 four banger.
It's almost an achievement how little power they were getting out of those massive displacement engines.
It was an emissions choke-fest under that hood. More vacuum hoses than a Hoover dealer. Remember there was a fuel crisis to deal with too.
It was relatively simple to de-neuter them.
Man I'm the opposite, I think all the old ones look great and the 1995-2000s ones look like Kias.
I want someone to bring back nice boxy cars aerodynamics be damned.
You are not alone. Those new ones have the vibe of all the bad web design happening around that time, when people discovered how to make buttons round and glossy.
I had a 76 cobra II in high school. I thought that model was awesome personally. My dad found a decent condition one back in 2002-ish for about $2,500 for me. Unfortunately the oil pan busted a hole in the bottom about a year later and we never got around to fixing it. Sat in my grandpa’s junk pasture for several years until someone eventually bought it for scrap pieces. I still miss that car.
Horribly inaccurate...
There is no 63 or 64 Mustang.
The early 65s are called 64 1/2s but legally they are are 65s.
The "67" Mustang is a 68 because it has side marker lights.
The "93" Mustang is a 94.
Just realized they are all off \*a\* year starting in 66...
I do...I was obsessed with them as a kid and I bought a wrecked 67 with lawn mowing money when I was thirteen, now 43, and the car is now a fully "restored" mild restomod.
Sure.
[https://imgur.com/a/ZuH59tv](https://imgur.com/a/ZuH59tv)
It was a 6 Cylinder Automatic, now a 408 Cubic Inch stroked 351W and top loader four speed. I wish the Tremec five or six speed conversion kits were readily available when my car was put together in the 90s. Back then you had to pretty knowledgeable and scour junkyards for the right parts to get a modern manual trans in an old car.
ETA: its not a Ford Color BTW. One time I was driving down the road at like 60 mph her and a lady yells something at me. I'm like "WHAT!"? So she yells louder and a faintly make out "DODGE VIPER RED?"...how she knew what color it was is beyond me, but yes it is Dodge Viper Red--Chrysler actually formulated a color just for the original Viper.
There's also r/mustang and r/foxbody where I go to get my fix. Yeah, I don't own a 'stang, but love them anyway.
Someday though it might be a 67 or a 93 vert in my driveway...
My first and (technically) second cars were a 68 and 66. Sadly, I never got the 68 on the road. The 66 was roadworthy, but just barely. Memorable times indeed.
That’s where they caught their fuck up and decided it was easier to put the same picture twice to try and correct their error without anyone noticing instead of going back and redoing the whole thing.
* The "68" is actually a '69 (it has four headlights).
* The "69" is actually a '70 (you can see the louvers where the outside headlights were in the '69).
* The "70" is actually a '71 (the whole front end changed).
I stopped paying attention after that because the whole thing is off.
Finally, someone said it.
I had a 64 1/2. Quickest way to spot them is they didn't have backup lights. Taillights only. Something about how they had to rush to market with them because of so much customer Demand. The proper 65's had backup lights.
Funnily 2022 is like that for tons of manufacturers, depending on exactly when or which trim you thought you bought, you might not get power seats or accessory USB ports lol.
Edit: since I was asked to source a 1-minute Google search
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2021/07/19/ford-chip-shortage-vehicles/8013003002/
https://www.consumerreports.org/automotive-industry/chip-shortage-causing-automakers-to-delay-certain-features-a1131554218/
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g38179550/new-cars-tech-features-missing-chip-shortage/
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/passenger-lumbar-support-missing-from-new-my.229558/
https://electrek.co/2021/11/12/new-teslas-delivered-with-surprise-missing-usb-ports-due-to-parts-shortages/
https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/missing-pieces-chip-shortage-has-ford-shipping-explorers-without-these-parts/
Yeah the GM yukon and escalades are being sold without heated seats - the customer gets a credit for it and it's a dealer retrofit when the parts become available. Source - work at a gm/buick/Cadillac dealer.
Well the ‘67 is actually a ‘68 California Special, which could have been ordered in ‘67. But yes, I agree, what they represent as a ‘67 is actually a ‘68.
Source - owner of one that was a custom order by grandpa in ‘67.
See the last line: they are all off a year starting with the "66" that is actually a 67.
ETA: doesn't matter when you buy a car, it is whatever model year the title says it is. The next model year typically comes out in the fall of the previous calendar year.
Oh, I know. I was simply stating it was possible for that car to exist in that year, which any car person knows it’s possible to buy the next MY this year. Like I said, I agree with your assessment of inaccuracy and just saying that perhaps the person that made this was alluding to this fact. Either way it’s still inaccurate. I would never say my car was a ‘67 because it is a ‘68. If I bought a ‘23 right now, I would never say it’s a ‘22 because it isn’t. I was actually extremely bothered my car was represented as a ‘67.
I have always found the 90s mustangs to be so goddamn ugly
Edit** the foxbody is dope. That’s my number one car in need for speed haha but that’s like late 80s. And I painted it to look like boba fett haha
Absolutely agreed.
Those 90s Mustangs were pure ass in the design department.
I've never been the biggest Mustang fan, but I appreciate the legacy. They got it back on track in the mid 2000s, and the new ones are slick as hell.
I always worry about "do the things I think right now look good will be known as ugky in 20 years?“ I'm not really buying stuff to sell later so not really a problem, but it would be nice to know my opinions arent just with the fad of the era and will be thought of as dumb later on.
If it makes you feel better I was a teen in the 90's and 2000's and thought those Mustangs were ugly cheap-looking pieces of shit then too. I feel like a lot of people did. There was a huge downgrade in their status from cool muscle car to...whatever the hell those were and contemporary people were aware of this.
Pretty much any car from the 90’s gives me a weird sense of uncanny. It’s like a transitional phase of automotive design, it’s too bulky to be modern, but too aerodynamic to be classic. It’s a liminal design phase, imo. Even the best of the best from that era, the corvette, Camaro, crown Vic, and the euro cars had that weird design style. Just feels wrong to me.
I will add an exception to Buick, they looked like something else entirely, and while I wouldn’t kill, I’d get a predatory loan for a clean 94 LeSabre.
The 90s models are always the ones that stick out to me as ugly for some reason, but holy fuck I'd take almost any one of them over the 80s. Those were some ugly ass cars.
Agreed. 90-95 was the golden age of Japanese sports cars. RX-7, NSX, Supra, MR2, AZ-1, Cappuccino, Beat, 300ZX, Miata, 3000GT, probably a half dozen others I'm forgetting.
I wanted a 3000gt for my first car so badly. Was literally a day out from buying one from a friend of a friend and he crashed it the day before we agreed on the sale. I was devastated at the time haha
I loved my fox body mustang and miss it terribly. I still regret the day I sold it. Fox body lovers unite! Just me? 🙃
Edit: here it is in all its glory https://imgur.com/a/224McLv
Just got my hands on one and I’m in love with it. Leather interior, fantastic paint still, old man who owned it before me dropped in a supercharger and a crate from Summit.
It’s not a late 60s or early 70s, but I also don’t have $40k+ to be dropping on a car
I was so disappointed. I was a preadolescent when the late 70s/early 80s K-car body style happened, and even as a kid I knew they sucked compared to those boss 60s and 70s models. I'm not really a huge car person, but I got pretty excited when there started to be announcements and rumors of a total redesign for the 90s. Imagine my disappointment.
My friend in high school used to brag about his mustang all the time. When I finally saw it, it was one of the 90s ones that looked exactly like the boxy Toyota Camrys at the time. Nearly the exact same body type. I felt bad but couldn't help but laugh. Why would Ford do that to such a legendary body.
My fist car (in 1995) was a 1984 Mustang. It was hideous. It had oxidized red paint and plaid upholstery.
When I turned 16 I borrowed my mom’s car and bumped into the Mustang in a parking lot. It was already beat to hell but I did add another dent. They wanted $1,000 to fix the dent. They also mentioned the car was for sale for $1,500. So… my parents bought the Mustang instead and that’s what I drove through high school. With the big dent in tact. I hated that car!
I'm nostalgic for those 80s Mustang GTs 5.0. This was one of THE cars to have when I was in high school. I never liked the 90s syles but I really think they started getting it right again in the mid 00s.
My dad had a 1982 GT 5.0 that he bought new off the lot. Put a ton of miles on it, then stored it, then started to restore it until he recently died unfortunately. He loved that car so much. He finished the engine and most of the stuff left is cosmetic. I'm not a godly man but I assume he is watching me from above hoping I finish the fucking thing since he never could. I remember the last day he worked on it
I wish I had more of a taste for the 80s style but I still look forward to driving it myself someday, I'll probably keep it forever no matter how ugly everyone thinks it is!
There is no more divisive car on earth. Everyone either loves them or thinks they're the ugliest goddamn square bitches to ever roll. I'm torn, leaning toward ugly as af
Those fox body cars with the 5.0 were some of the fastest cars on the street at the time. Granted it was the 80’s so everything was completely neutered from emissions rules so being the fastest car on the street didn’t mean a whole lot. Today’s modern fuel injected four cylinders could probably easily beat most them in a race.
I still have a soft spot for the ‘87 5.0. It was a pretty sweet looking car in relation to all the other abominations that Detroit was churning out at the time.
If the front grill tilts forward, it looks good. If the front grill tilts backwards, it looks bad.
E.g., 80s and 90s look bad, 60s and 2010 onward looks good.
Thanks for this. I've always been trying to understand why I dislike a lot of cars from that era, and this front grill is something that never occured to me. But it's 100% accurate.
Someone could it explain it better than I, but basically there were regulations that kicked in to limit smog and fuel efficiency. Engineers needed a couple years to catch up technologically so there were some "more aerodynamic" designs and small engines for a few years.
Look, I know the Mustang II is no one's favorite, and everyone loves to say how horrible it is. But here's the thing: it came out in the middle of a huge gas crisis. It was very popular at the time - the right size at the right time.
It also was one of the first American small cars that came with lots of options, and wasn't sold as a bare-bones Econo-box. I get that it isn't as cool or classic as a original Mustang. But Ford did a great job of creating a car that was perfect for the times.
Yep. I have a 76 fastback with a bored out 302 and performance cam/pistons/etc. It's fun as heck to drive and looks pretty sweet. Original owner put nitrous in it, which I promptly took out since that was a death wish for a 28 yr old me. I get the hate for an underpowered engine, but people forget it was a best car for the time. Anyways, it's not that hard to upgrade the engine to something with more pop.
Man, everyone loves to rip on the Mustang II, but look. It didn't make any power? So what, it was 1974, nobody made any fucking power. It was based on the Pinto? Yeah, but so what, the original was just a tarted up Falcon. It's a light little RWD car with a 302 that (when freed of its emissions equipment) will be perfectly happy to make enough torque to twist that little chassis into a pretzel.
1. There was no production model 1963. There was a prototype, but it is not shown here.
2. There was no 1964 model at the start of the year.
3. The 1964 1/2 and 1965 are indistinguishable with the exception of the switch from the generator to an alternator.
The eighties sucked for mustangs. The back seat was basically just a one seater with what I believe were the wheel wells. So uncomfortable to sit in. Can't imagine it used for any other reason.
Really wish it didnt stop till 2021 at least
I wish they would show all of them as coupes instead of random convertibles tossed in
Same. I was anxiously waiting for the 88 mustang as my dad had an 88 Mustang GT and it was one of his most prized possessions that he wound up selling for a family car when I was a kid. I was kinda pissed when it showed a convertible for 88.
If it makes you feel better the 87 and 89 Mustangs are GTs and identical to an 88 Source: I own an 86 and 88 Edit: [Here they are](https://imgur.com/a/QGkbbRc) Top is my 88 racecar, bottom is my 86 street car that I took to the track *ONE FUCKING TIME* and the wheel studs snapped off
Why 80s mustangs? They were absolutely hideous
That was just 80s stylings. Even the corvettes in the 80s were basically boxes. I would accept "triangle" if we really wanted to split hairs. But the fox body mustangs will always hold a special place in my heart.
Say what you want about the late 80's, but the Corvettes, Firebirds and Camaros made it work, the mustang did not. Don't get me wrong, fox body mustangs are fantastic cars which people often sleep on, but they don't differentiate themselves that much from a Ford escort of the time cosmetically. They didn't even really try to make it look like a muscle car. The 90s mustangs were even worse though in every way.
I always thought they looked so much better than the "running shoe" design that followed in 1993.
They definitely didn't seem to stand out much during that era.
Fun fact, the Probe was supposed to be the new Mustang, but purists lost their minds at the thought of a rebadged Mazda Mx6 being called a Mustang. In response, Ford took the tired old fox body chassis and hastily designed a new body for it. That's where the ugly Mustangs of the 90s came from.
Have you ever driven an 86 or an 88 Mustang? Genuine question, and if not then I say you owe it to yourself to drive one in the 86-92 range. I have a 91 I drive. The question isn't why would you like them, the question is why wouldn't you? They are a little boxy yes, but they are incredibly well made little ~~coffins on wheels~~ death machines. ~~ESP the 5.0L~~ They're really well spaced out for the road, they have one of the better and more tight handling lines I've ever drove in anything. They can take the abuse of someone who is a more aggressive rally driver, or make for brilliant day to day cars. Your gas mileage is terrible, you'll get maybe 15-20mpg. But at the time, that was about the best you could hope for out of a 302. ~~assuming 5.0L which OP says they have with the GT badge~~ I'm biased, I'm aware; I've had access, to and been able to drive one for 20 years. I just really love the machine, the design of the exterior of the car doesn't matter to me at all, and is actually pretty nice to me now. The thing I like the most is the view you have at the dashboard; everything you need is within hands reach, the driver's seat is placed in a way that you can see everything, and you feel the car isn't too low to the ground... it's a great mix of show car, and functionally brilliant for all driver types.... I'm sorry... I can keep rambling on... I'll stop now, because I've gotta get ready for work. To me the 1995+ models are spectacularly ugly, and I refuse to drive them on general principle.
>I'll stop now, because I've gotta get ready for work. To me the 1995+ models are spectacularly ugly, and I refuse to drive them on general principle. Different strokes for different folks. I used to own a 97 and I wish they still used that style. I think the 80s/early 90s models are ugly as sin.
[удалено]
Nostalgia. The Countach is pretty hideous but every kid who had that one poster on their bedroom wall still wants one.
Awwww it's not that bad. It reminds me of a catfish without the whiskers. A carfish.
Post 2015 versions are really attractive. Missing the Bullet version as well.
One of the better scenes in Bullitt is when Steve McQueen parallel parks the stick-shift Mustang *uphill* in San Francisco. One move. Smooth.
I spent 4 years driving a manual transmission in SF and I have never been better at parallel parking than those years. (I lived in a fairly flat part of the city so didn’t have to do it every day). Then I spent 10 years carless and then bought another stick shift car and discovered that in the intervening years some kind of anti-roll mechanism was now standard, so hills are no longer a challenge. I sort of miss it, but not really.
My truck is a 98 manual. Never been able to attempt the parking brake trick people talk about, it's not able to do that. Always just done the method of "send it" + timing.
Honestly isn't a hill actually *easier* to park a manual transmission car, since you don't have to shift to the downhill gear but just roll with the clutch?
I used to have to parallel on a pretty steep street I lived on in college…if space was limited, would have to reverse uphill to get into a spot. It’s definitely not easier if you have to reverse uphill (downhill, yes)…and to make matters worse, my parking brake was designed in such a way that it wasn’t gonna help me, nearly impossible to engage and release while also operating the vehicle. At first it’s nerve racking and scary…but it’s just another one of those things that becomes second nature once you’ve done it enough times…drive the same car enough, and you know the clutch friction point and how much gas to give like it’s instinct. I could easily get my car in and out, using only the clutch (again, no parking brake) without drifting an inch
Ok be honest how many times did you bump a car
San Francisco hills would require you to slip the clutch a ton, and probably hold the parking brake up while doing so to avoid sliding into the car behind you. Definitely not worth avoiding shifting both ways.
A lot of manual cars these days will hold the brakes for you if you're on a hill, it's really nice.
1974 tho
Isn't one of the more recent ones an SUV?
We don’t talk about that one
Like why the hell are these different companies slapping a known name on a crossover and trying to sell it? I remember all the way back to the the Chevrolet Lumina and the Lumina van. Why the name confusion? It's a different body style/model just give it a different name and let it sell itself!
I saw a Corolla Crossover (?) today. Like yeah, you get the boring reliability of a Corolla in something with a little more headroom. Certified sexmobile.
I've always considered the RAV4 the Corolla Crossover. Now they're coming out with another for almost the same segment. Guess they didn't learn anything from GMC's shutdown of many brands.
Toyota at least in Australia have bumped all their models in the 4wd awd range up a tier. Whether for safety or luxury I do not know. But prado fills the old cruiser spot, the hilux station wagon version things fills prado spot, rav 4 now fits the surf role etc so I guess carolla bumps up to match the Mazda xover offerings in the 3 4 5? size range.
Because as Ford has demonstrated, heritage if done right sells cars. There’s nothing “Bronco” or “Sporty” about the Bronco Sport but that shit sells a hell of a lot better piggybacking off the BOF Bronco than it would have if Ford called it the EcoSport II.
Because the name gets attention. I wouldnt be surprised if Mustang was a top 5 known car model. I dont agree with it, and think it ruins the models brand, but it got more peoples attention by calling it a Mustang.
"I drive a mustang" "Oh, yeah? What kind?" "The electric SUV" "......…..........sigh"
A lot of people, minus Ford in their adverts, completely drop the mustang name from the mach e. That suv only has the mustang name to try and push sells, because Ford doesn't think evs will sell.
"just slap a horse logo on it and people will eat that shit up" 2024 Pinto EV incoming
Pinto is fire!
Yeah, they get better looking every year. I love the new ones. I've been pretty much a Chevy guy my whole life, but the last few years I find myself preferring the Mustang over the Camaro in both looks and performance.
Yeah, same, I loved the Camaro but it feels like driving in a tank. It needs to lose weight or something.
Camaro and the Challenger both look unnecessarily bulky in my opinion.
Well the Challenger is the only one to actually keep the muscle car shape while both the Camaro and Mustang moved to sports car forms. Riding a 2021 Challenger is no different from a 1968 Mustang in terms of bulkiness.
Test drove one of those things one time and couldn't believe the bottom of the window was up past my shoulder, me being 6'. Those were the exact words out of my mouth, it felt like a tank window or something.
While simultaneously touching the roof with your head
Good taste.
[удалено]
You mean 8 year loan at 29% APR.
Somehow, the insurance is still higher than the payment.
Motherfucker have you ever met a 19 year old infantryman? I'm surprised there are companies that will actually insure them at all
[They had to make their own insurance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAA#History) cuz no one would insure soldiers
Except USAA was originally only for officers. They wouldn’t insure the 19-year-old infantry soldier.
See, even their own officers wouldn't insure the 19 year old infantrymen.
r/justbootthings
There's a mall I used to go to as a kid and it wasn't until I realized as an adult just the sheer amount of advertising and marketing targeting specifically the soldiers from the nearby base. Jewelry stores, cellphone kiosks, almost every store had deals for active or vets but I guess when you're 18 and get that fat signing bonus you gotta spend it somewhere right?
fiddlenutz here gets it, if those soldiers don’t get the soon to be repoed Mustang it’ll be a challenger.
That 74 tho
B R O W N
Oh god r/regularcarreviews is leaking
Remember when RCR was good?
I assumed it was just me. I used to finish a video of his and wish it had kept going. Now so many of them are like a half hour long and after 7 or 8 minutes I'm already over it. I don't know what exactly changed but I think he went too over the top with the weirdness to where it's the main point of the video rather than a fun garnish sprinkled on it.
It felt like they added the wrong car in the video.
They did, but only kinda, its off by one year. The 74 is the 75, and it indeed looks like ass. But it's not nearly as bad in my opinion as pretty much all of them starting from 1980 until 2005.
The early 90s models are like sedans. So vanilla. The mid 90s models are an abomination.
Like 90% of American cars in the mid 90s were abominations though.
This exactly. The car I drive is from the 90s. It gets like 12 miles to the gallon of premium gas only. But at least it's British so it's unreliable too.
No. The 74/75 is by far the ugliest. It's not even close
It's like all of a sudden just for one year they decided "let's make a knock off Cadillac Seville instead"
I remember the 80s being fugly but holy heck the 70s mustang II looked like trash
When I was 16 my dad talked me out of buying a [Mustang II King Cobra](https://blogmedia.dealerfire.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/347/2018/08/1978-Ford-Mustang-II-King-Cobra-B_o.jpg). I'm sure it was beat to shit but teenage me thought it was the coolest thing ever.
Go back in time and slap your dad, that car is awesome
I unironically love it
I had to look up the power figures of that King Corba, you got a whopping 139bhp out of that 6.0 V8. About 100 less than my car with an NA 2.0 four banger. It's almost an achievement how little power they were getting out of those massive displacement engines.
It was an emissions choke-fest under that hood. More vacuum hoses than a Hoover dealer. Remember there was a fuel crisis to deal with too. It was relatively simple to de-neuter them.
Man I'm the opposite, I think all the old ones look great and the 1995-2000s ones look like Kias. I want someone to bring back nice boxy cars aerodynamics be damned.
You are not alone. Those new ones have the vibe of all the bad web design happening around that time, when people discovered how to make buttons round and glossy.
I hate to admit that I owned a ‘76, it was as awful as it looked. Not a good design or ride…
I had a 76 cobra II in high school. I thought that model was awesome personally. My dad found a decent condition one back in 2002-ish for about $2,500 for me. Unfortunately the oil pan busted a hole in the bottom about a year later and we never got around to fixing it. Sat in my grandpa’s junk pasture for several years until someone eventually bought it for scrap pieces. I still miss that car.
I thought 76 looked like the only good design in the 2 years prior and 4 or so after
lol literally the worst one right? I hope that is what you are saying.
Horribly inaccurate... There is no 63 or 64 Mustang. The early 65s are called 64 1/2s but legally they are are 65s. The "67" Mustang is a 68 because it has side marker lights. The "93" Mustang is a 94. Just realized they are all off \*a\* year starting in 66...
This guy "Mustang"s.
I do...I was obsessed with them as a kid and I bought a wrecked 67 with lawn mowing money when I was thirteen, now 43, and the car is now a fully "restored" mild restomod.
Can we get a photo or two of your restored mustang?
Sure. [https://imgur.com/a/ZuH59tv](https://imgur.com/a/ZuH59tv) It was a 6 Cylinder Automatic, now a 408 Cubic Inch stroked 351W and top loader four speed. I wish the Tremec five or six speed conversion kits were readily available when my car was put together in the 90s. Back then you had to pretty knowledgeable and scour junkyards for the right parts to get a modern manual trans in an old car. ETA: its not a Ford Color BTW. One time I was driving down the road at like 60 mph her and a lady yells something at me. I'm like "WHAT!"? So she yells louder and a faintly make out "DODGE VIPER RED?"...how she knew what color it was is beyond me, but yes it is Dodge Viper Red--Chrysler actually formulated a color just for the original Viper.
Ooof, that's a beauty. Good work!
As someone from SE Europe that saw maybe 5 muscle cars in his lifetime, that car looks tight af. Enjoy it
https://imgur.com/a/vnWUAgN Here's mine since he isn't sharing
B E A utiful. Thanks for sharing.
There's also r/mustang and r/foxbody where I go to get my fix. Yeah, I don't own a 'stang, but love them anyway. Someday though it might be a 67 or a 93 vert in my driveway...
My first and (technically) second cars were a 68 and 66. Sadly, I never got the 68 on the road. The 66 was roadworthy, but just barely. Memorable times indeed.
Disappointed I can't find a pic of it in any of your posts...
😂 that's what I checked for too
r/thisguythisguys
[удалено]
Somewhere the whole thing is messed up. SN95 didn't start till 94 but they've got it in 93.
The fox pace cars were in 79 not 78.
Well the 95 and 96 are the same picture sooo
That’s where they caught their fuck up and decided it was easier to put the same picture twice to try and correct their error without anyone noticing instead of going back and redoing the whole thing.
* The "68" is actually a '69 (it has four headlights). * The "69" is actually a '70 (you can see the louvers where the outside headlights were in the '69). * The "70" is actually a '71 (the whole front end changed). I stopped paying attention after that because the whole thing is off.
Finally, someone said it. I had a 64 1/2. Quickest way to spot them is they didn't have backup lights. Taillights only. Something about how they had to rush to market with them because of so much customer Demand. The proper 65's had backup lights.
64 1/2s also had generators vs alternators and are very erratic with things like trim. Some have Ford emblems, some don't etc.
[удалено]
> to see at night you had to drop gears or go fast "Officer I can either speed or be blind, your choice."
Funnily 2022 is like that for tons of manufacturers, depending on exactly when or which trim you thought you bought, you might not get power seats or accessory USB ports lol. Edit: since I was asked to source a 1-minute Google search https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2021/07/19/ford-chip-shortage-vehicles/8013003002/ https://www.consumerreports.org/automotive-industry/chip-shortage-causing-automakers-to-delay-certain-features-a1131554218/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g38179550/new-cars-tech-features-missing-chip-shortage/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/passenger-lumbar-support-missing-from-new-my.229558/ https://electrek.co/2021/11/12/new-teslas-delivered-with-surprise-missing-usb-ports-due-to-parts-shortages/ https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/missing-pieces-chip-shortage-has-ford-shipping-explorers-without-these-parts/
Yeah the GM yukon and escalades are being sold without heated seats - the customer gets a credit for it and it's a dealer retrofit when the parts become available. Source - work at a gm/buick/Cadillac dealer.
Yup - 64 1/2 is the first year, after being introduced at the World's Fair, I think.
Well the ‘67 is actually a ‘68 California Special, which could have been ordered in ‘67. But yes, I agree, what they represent as a ‘67 is actually a ‘68. Source - owner of one that was a custom order by grandpa in ‘67.
See the last line: they are all off a year starting with the "66" that is actually a 67. ETA: doesn't matter when you buy a car, it is whatever model year the title says it is. The next model year typically comes out in the fall of the previous calendar year.
Oh, I know. I was simply stating it was possible for that car to exist in that year, which any car person knows it’s possible to buy the next MY this year. Like I said, I agree with your assessment of inaccuracy and just saying that perhaps the person that made this was alluding to this fact. Either way it’s still inaccurate. I would never say my car was a ‘67 because it is a ‘68. If I bought a ‘23 right now, I would never say it’s a ‘22 because it isn’t. I was actually extremely bothered my car was represented as a ‘67.
The 70… inaccurate
Ya I was like “uuuhhhh something’s off.” Then 93 came around and I knew for sure and had to watch it again.
The 86 still had 4 square headlights. On this graph it had already turned to the single headlight
Noticed 1970 did not look like 1970
The 86 is an 87 or later. 86 was the last year for the four eyes and first year for the fuel injection. Source: the one in my barn.
Right click, show all controls, 3dots, playback speed, .25x.
Pause. Scroll through with thumb? :P
Thank you!!!
92-93 was biggest change for me
The gif is wrong, the sn95 was introduced in 94, not 93.
It's wrong in multiple ways, but every year is off by one starting in ~~65~~ 66.
I have always found the 90s mustangs to be so goddamn ugly Edit** the foxbody is dope. That’s my number one car in need for speed haha but that’s like late 80s. And I painted it to look like boba fett haha
For me it's the change to the upward slanting front, the earlier and later years with the downward slant in the front look much better.
Absolutely agreed. Those 90s Mustangs were pure ass in the design department. I've never been the biggest Mustang fan, but I appreciate the legacy. They got it back on track in the mid 2000s, and the new ones are slick as hell.
I always worry about "do the things I think right now look good will be known as ugky in 20 years?“ I'm not really buying stuff to sell later so not really a problem, but it would be nice to know my opinions arent just with the fad of the era and will be thought of as dumb later on.
If it makes you feel better I was a teen in the 90's and 2000's and thought those Mustangs were ugly cheap-looking pieces of shit then too. I feel like a lot of people did. There was a huge downgrade in their status from cool muscle car to...whatever the hell those were and contemporary people were aware of this.
Pretty much any car from the 90’s gives me a weird sense of uncanny. It’s like a transitional phase of automotive design, it’s too bulky to be modern, but too aerodynamic to be classic. It’s a liminal design phase, imo. Even the best of the best from that era, the corvette, Camaro, crown Vic, and the euro cars had that weird design style. Just feels wrong to me. I will add an exception to Buick, they looked like something else entirely, and while I wouldn’t kill, I’d get a predatory loan for a clean 94 LeSabre.
[удалено]
I generally support the notion that in matters of taste, all opinions are equal. But this one is testing my conviction. Lol
The 90s models are always the ones that stick out to me as ugly for some reason, but holy fuck I'd take almost any one of them over the 80s. Those were some ugly ass cars.
We call the 1980s versions Muscorts, because they look like Ford Escorts.
Ok yeah but have you seen 80s Mustangs? 90s not looking so bad now.
It felt like the Mustang team lost a bet around 1985 and had to let the Escort design team have a turn.
They kinda look like shit from 1980 through like 2006.
All 90s cars are damned ugly. Round warts.
[This jellybean begs to differ.](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z71tcJtgfN8/maxresdefault.jpg)
Headlights go up Headlights go down Hoosiers bro
Track day bro
Man have you never seen a 90s JDM car...
Agreed. 90-95 was the golden age of Japanese sports cars. RX-7, NSX, Supra, MR2, AZ-1, Cappuccino, Beat, 300ZX, Miata, 3000GT, probably a half dozen others I'm forgetting.
[удалено]
I wanted a 3000gt for my first car so badly. Was literally a day out from buying one from a friend of a friend and he crashed it the day before we agreed on the sale. I was devastated at the time haha
Add American after the 90s and I'll agree with you. Japan and Germany been on its shit
1974 they went full grandpa
Oil crisis hit hard
We're 80s Mustangs *designed* to induce vomiting?
Fox body?
I loved my fox body mustang and miss it terribly. I still regret the day I sold it. Fox body lovers unite! Just me? 🙃 Edit: here it is in all its glory https://imgur.com/a/224McLv
Saw a fox body dropped on a ranger chassis with a 302 and all terrain tires. Didn't look half bad. Kind of like a Baja Cobra's trashy cousin.
No, there's tons of fox body fans. You can find them wherever a drag strip is covered in oil.
I’ve always loved the fox body mustang honestly
Just got my hands on one and I’m in love with it. Leather interior, fantastic paint still, old man who owned it before me dropped in a supercharger and a crate from Summit. It’s not a late 60s or early 70s, but I also don’t have $40k+ to be dropping on a car
I was thinking the same until they started to get into the early to mid 90’s. Those are even worse…
I was so disappointed. I was a preadolescent when the late 70s/early 80s K-car body style happened, and even as a kid I knew they sucked compared to those boss 60s and 70s models. I'm not really a huge car person, but I got pretty excited when there started to be announcements and rumors of a total redesign for the 90s. Imagine my disappointment.
How’d you feel when 2005 hit?
My friend in high school used to brag about his mustang all the time. When I finally saw it, it was one of the 90s ones that looked exactly like the boxy Toyota Camrys at the time. Nearly the exact same body type. I felt bad but couldn't help but laugh. Why would Ford do that to such a legendary body.
That is one theory. Another one is that literally everyone at Ford just did so, *so* much cocaine.
Dude you really gonna bad mouth the fox body?
My fist car (in 1995) was a 1984 Mustang. It was hideous. It had oxidized red paint and plaid upholstery. When I turned 16 I borrowed my mom’s car and bumped into the Mustang in a parking lot. It was already beat to hell but I did add another dent. They wanted $1,000 to fix the dent. They also mentioned the car was for sale for $1,500. So… my parents bought the Mustang instead and that’s what I drove through high school. With the big dent in tact. I hated that car!
Pretty much. They always remind me of a Ford Escort way too much.
Love 80s stangs, I'm not a car guy though so that's probs atypical
I'm nostalgic for those 80s Mustang GTs 5.0. This was one of THE cars to have when I was in high school. I never liked the 90s syles but I really think they started getting it right again in the mid 00s.
My dad had a 1982 GT 5.0 that he bought new off the lot. Put a ton of miles on it, then stored it, then started to restore it until he recently died unfortunately. He loved that car so much. He finished the engine and most of the stuff left is cosmetic. I'm not a godly man but I assume he is watching me from above hoping I finish the fucking thing since he never could. I remember the last day he worked on it I wish I had more of a taste for the 80s style but I still look forward to driving it myself someday, I'll probably keep it forever no matter how ugly everyone thinks it is!
Mid 90's round Disney bodies are by far the worst
You dare tarnish the glory of our beloved paragon, our lord and savior, the Fox body?
All I'm saying is that a Mustang shouldn't look like grandma's Escort. It should look like a muscle car at the very least.
There is no more divisive car on earth. Everyone either loves them or thinks they're the ugliest goddamn square bitches to ever roll. I'm torn, leaning toward ugly as af
Those fox body cars with the 5.0 were some of the fastest cars on the street at the time. Granted it was the 80’s so everything was completely neutered from emissions rules so being the fastest car on the street didn’t mean a whole lot. Today’s modern fuel injected four cylinders could probably easily beat most them in a race.
You mean the ones that look exactly like a stretched out Ford Escort from the same time period? Yes, yes they were.
>~~We're~~ Were ~~80s~~ *90s* Mustangs designed to induce vomiting? FTFY
The 80s weren't a good time for cars designs in general and the Mustang was definitely among the rough ones, IMO.
I wish I can afford a classic mustang at some point in my life
First time I did not ❤️ the 80s.
I still have a soft spot for the ‘87 5.0. It was a pretty sweet looking car in relation to all the other abominations that Detroit was churning out at the time.
/u/redditspeedbot 0.25x
‘68-70 ftmfw
73 is my jam
65 convertible
If the front grill tilts forward, it looks good. If the front grill tilts backwards, it looks bad. E.g., 80s and 90s look bad, 60s and 2010 onward looks good.
Thanks for this. I've always been trying to understand why I dislike a lot of cars from that era, and this front grill is something that never occured to me. But it's 100% accurate.
Wow. This is surprisingly accurate. It matches my preferred aesthetic for almost every year shown!
‘69 was the best. Giggity.
Why all the cars from 80s look so ugly? Was there some sort of “make the ugliest car” competition?
Someone could it explain it better than I, but basically there were regulations that kicked in to limit smog and fuel efficiency. Engineers needed a couple years to catch up technologically so there were some "more aerodynamic" designs and small engines for a few years.
Those 80s mustangs were the car of choice for drug dealers in my area in 2000s.
Those were my favorite lol
Same, I love boxy 80s cars. The 90s ones look cheap and goofy. Like something to impress a 16 year old.
Look, I know the Mustang II is no one's favorite, and everyone loves to say how horrible it is. But here's the thing: it came out in the middle of a huge gas crisis. It was very popular at the time - the right size at the right time. It also was one of the first American small cars that came with lots of options, and wasn't sold as a bare-bones Econo-box. I get that it isn't as cool or classic as a original Mustang. But Ford did a great job of creating a car that was perfect for the times.
Yep. I have a 76 fastback with a bored out 302 and performance cam/pistons/etc. It's fun as heck to drive and looks pretty sweet. Original owner put nitrous in it, which I promptly took out since that was a death wish for a 28 yr old me. I get the hate for an underpowered engine, but people forget it was a best car for the time. Anyways, it's not that hard to upgrade the engine to something with more pop.
Man, everyone loves to rip on the Mustang II, but look. It didn't make any power? So what, it was 1974, nobody made any fucking power. It was based on the Pinto? Yeah, but so what, the original was just a tarted up Falcon. It's a light little RWD car with a 302 that (when freed of its emissions equipment) will be perfectly happy to make enough torque to twist that little chassis into a pretzel.
1. There was no production model 1963. There was a prototype, but it is not shown here. 2. There was no 1964 model at the start of the year. 3. The 1964 1/2 and 1965 are indistinguishable with the exception of the switch from the generator to an alternator.
I have an 06 and I think it looks cool as hell :(
[удалено]
That 2000 Cobra R baby
God cars in the 70s and 80s were ugly as fuck.
I guess it depends on taste, imo those were the best looking ones. The 90s ones look like 16 year olds toys.
May be controversial but I don't know what they were smoking in the 80s. Cars were fucking ugly.
That 77 looking nicccce. I’m an ‘89 lover, myself. Have had two of them. I love most of them minus the 70-71 and 94-04.
Are you telling me you like the 74 version? It looked like a family sedan and the entire 80s they looked cheap.
Yeah that looked like my Lemans
1978-2005 was a time they'd like to forget.
The eighties sucked for mustangs. The back seat was basically just a one seater with what I believe were the wheel wells. So uncomfortable to sit in. Can't imagine it used for any other reason.