Best Mustang Era

Best Mustang Era

Your era is flawed.

It should be 64-68
69-72,
73-78,
79-93,
94-98,
99-04.

Your era is flawed.

It should be 64-68
69-72,
73-78,
79-93,
94-98,
99-04.

so is yours :p ....
i thought it was

64-70
71-73
74-78
79-86
87-93
94-98
99-04
2005+

but then again he's asking for era, not body style?

The current "era" is the most promising. I would pick today.

Jon

Well, if its body style it should be 65-66, 67-68,.....etc.
Era, I think the first sould be 64-73, the II's, and so on. Anyway, thats not the point, I say the 1st era the best. Mainly because it started it all, had great proportions, and good engine choices.

that question is very vague. it depend on what u think the best it are u asking styling,preformence reliabilty,or all around. if im going by all around i would have to say the current era is the most promising it combines preformence reliablity, and amazing styling.

1.94-04
2. 64 1/2-72
3.80-85
4.86-93
5. 73-79 the mustang 2 what a peice of junk

The earlier post was correct. If you go by platform then it is 64-1/2 (technically 65) through 73 as they were all on the same basic chassis. However, with styling considered the 67-68, especially in Shelby trim, were the ultimate Mustang and ponycar IMO. By far.

I'm all about cheap power. My favorite is 85-93 (not exactly what you had on the poll but i had to change a couple things).

yea i like the old 5.0's. they were cheap and so were parts. but insurance was high like must stangs are. then i like the new 4.6L.

I'm basing on exterior looks and chassis. If I remember correctly, 64-65 had the same chassis, 66-69 had the same chassis, and the 70-72 had the same, so forth.

I'm basing on exterior looks and chassis. If I remember correctly, 64-65 had the same chassis, 66-69 had the same chassis, and the 70-72 had the same, so forth.
That is correct, that's how most base it.

I like the '99-04 best (biased because I own one), very agressive styling and the cars just totally look like they could kick your ass. I also think the interior on them (which is the same interior as far back as '94) is the best.

I think the bodies on the '94-'98 were a little soft, but the taillights on the '96-98 are the hottest taillights I think I've ever seen on a car, agressive and artistic, remind of the open mouth of a snake ready to strike.

IMO the Fox bodies (80s and early 90s) were ugly, I think they're too boxy but most cars of the 80s were.

Of course the 70s and 60s are beautiful and classics, love them. Incredibly mean-looking, awesome, powerful, would give anything to own one.

There has never been a Mustang style that I wouldn't own. They are all awesome looking cars.

I'd fuck the hell out of my old v6. It was so sexy.

I'd fuck the hell out of my old v6. It was so sexy.
Dude, seriously, you got issues man. You know there's support groups for that sorta thing......

Actually, if you are basing it on basic bodystyle AND chassis changes this is how it should seperate out....65 (or 64-1/2 if you prefer) to 73 were all on the same basic chassis, but by body style it would seperate into 65 to 66, 67 to 68, 69-70, and 71-73 as these all used different "bodies" on top of that similar chassis. Between these four different first generation body-styles not one body part will interchange....period.

Every time the body-style changed the engine bay got larger through these years. And, there were fairly significant suspension upgrades throughout the years with the steering changing completely by 71.

Also, as an fyi, while people think that the 71-73 were the heaviest of the first gen cars, they were nearly identical in weight to a comparably equipped 69-70. It is so close (Less than a 100 pounds on nearly every comparable model) that it is virtually a tie for who was the "porkiest".

The 71-73 Mustangs were lower, wider, and had a slightly longer wheelbase than the 69-70 models. Overall length was fairly close though with the 71-73 appearing so large in comparisson to the 69-70 mainly being due to it's very long hood and "flatback styling". Just an fyi for everyone.

I really like the first year of the Mustang for looks. For you who know what your talking about. Did'nt they make a 64 and a 1/2 Mustang. But if I were looking at performence I would go for the 99 to the current Mustang.

Technically speaking, no. Ford did not make a 64-1/2 Mustang. What are comonly called 64-1/2 Mustangs were actually very early 65's. There are several reasons people basically always refer to them as "64-1/2's" now though.

One reason is that the 65 Mustang came out very, very early for a 65 model car. The production year itself was therefore very long and incorporated many changes.

There was one point during the model year in particular where a lot of changes took place simultaneously, including the introduction of the fastback body-style if I recall. Cars before this "change" are referred to as 64-1/2s.

Ford was also a big fan of the "half" model year idea back in the day as a time to institue upgrades to a car, and often instituted changes to cars mid year based on this concept. However, Ford never actually took this concept any further than that and made this "official". In other words Ford never actually made cars as 63-1/2's or 67-1/2's technically speaking. The car was still officially either a 63 or 64.....67 or 68.

Keep in mind that it is theoretically possible that you could indeed find a Mustang titled as a 64-1/2 from what I have seen. I say this because I have seen several cars titled incorrectly during my time even though you would think VIN numbers would take care of this problem.

Keep in mind that you may see

car and driver said that the fox body chasis is 25 yrs old... so is it true the 94-04 mustangs are based on the same frame?

Yes