THe new 2005 Ford Mustang

Do you like its nostalgic styling? Do you think it's a pure mix of the classic Mustang from the '60s and present day texture?
http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/auto/editorial/gallery/05mustang_lrg.jpg
Specs, Compliments of Car&Driver Mag:
2005 FORD MUSTANG

Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe

Estimated base price: $18,000

Major standard accessories: power windows and locks; remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting steering wheel; rear defroster

Base sound system: Ford AM/FM radio/CD player, 4 speakers

BASE ENGINE
Type V-6, iron block and aluminum heads
Bore x stroke 3.95 x 3.32 in, 100.4 x 84.4mm
Displacement 245 cu in, 4009cc
Compression ratio 9.7:1
Fuel-delivery system port injection
Valve gear chain-driven single overhead cams, 2 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters
Power (SAE net) 202 bhp @ 5250 rpm
Torque (SAE net) 235 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Redline 5750 rpm

OPTIONAL ENGINE
Type V-8, aluminum block and heads
Bore x stroke 3.55 x 3.54 in, 90.2 x 90.0mm
Displacement 281 cu in, 4601cc
Compression ratio 9.8:1
Fuel-delivery system port injection
Valve gear chain-driven single overhead cams, 3 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters, variable intake- and exhaust-valve timing
Power (SAE net) 300 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque (SAE net) 315 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Redline 6000 rpm

DRIVETRAIN
Transmissions 5-speed manual, 5-speed automatic
Final-drive ratio 3.31:1

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase 107.1 in
Track, front/rear 62.3–62.8/62.5–63.0 in
Length/width/height 187.6/72.1/54.5 in
Ground clearance 5.7–5.8 in
Curb weight 3300–3500 lb
Weight distribution, F/R 53.0/47.0%
Curb weight per horsepower 11.7–16.3 lb
Fuel capacity 16.0 gal

CHASSIS/BODY
Type unit construction
Body material welded steel stampings

INTERIOR
SAE volume, front seat 53 cu ft
rear seat 33 cu ft
luggage 12 cu ft
Front-seat adjustments fore-and-aft, seatback angle, height (optional); driver only: lumbar support
Restraint systems, front manual 3-point belts, driver and passenger front and side airbags
rear manual 3-point belts

SUSPENSION
Front ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs, anti-roll bar
Rear rigid axle located by 3 trailing links and a Panhard rod, coil springs, anti-roll bar

STEERING
Type rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power assist
Steering ratio 15.8:1
Turns lock-to-lock 2.8–3.1
Turning circle curb-to-curb 34.4–34.7 ft

BRAKES
Type hydraulic with vacuum power assist and anti-lock control
Front 11.5–12.4 x 1.2-in vented disc
Rear 11.8 x 0.7-in vented disc

WHEELS AND TIRES
Wheel size base, 7.0 x 16 in; GT, 8.0 x 17; opt GT, 9.0 x 18 in
Wheel type cast aluminum
Tires base, BFGoodrich Traction T/A, P215/65TR-16; GT, Pirelli, P235/55WR-17; opt GT, BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDW2, P255/45ZR-18

C/D-ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE
Zero to 60 mph 5.3–7.5 sec
Standing 1/4-mile 14.1–15.5 sec
Top speed (governor limited) 118–150 mph

ESTIMATED FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving 18–20 mpg
EPA highway driving 24–29 mpg

There are certain details I wish they had done in a different way, but she is the most beautiful car to wear the name since the 60s in my opinion.

There are certain details I wish they had done in a different way, but she is the most beautiful car to wear the name since the 60s in my opinion.

Ditto, the rest of them were chunky and un-stylish by comparison.

I really didn't like the original desigen back in 2003. But the final product is just a work of art. Put me on the list to buy one!

i only like it in black.

I guess I would have to keep it if someone gave me it. :smile:

It's ugly. No more. No less.

the new mustang is an absolute stunner. and this is coming from a camaro guy :p I loves the new stang and I hope to own one of those beauties one day. I mean whats not to love? muscly old school classic looks combined with new, a beefier 300hp engine (long overdue) and just plain sexy muscle. I love it :iceslolan

its quite affordable too for all the options you get.

the new mustang is an absolute stunner. and this is coming from a camaro guy :p I loves the new stang and I hope to own one of those beauties one day. I mean whats not to love? muscly old school classic looks combined with new, a beefier 300hp engine (long overdue) and just plain sexy muscle. I love it :iceslolan

yay! a convert! =P

i love that car, i wish i could drive one. too bad i'm a poor college student who can barely afford to feed himself. oh well, at least my notch runs now.

Personally I wish the front was a little more aggressive looking.

iam new here!!! answer me

guys r u there

Personally I wish the front was a little more aggressive looking.

Amen. The front-end does not look sporty at all. The design is definitely growing on me though.

I hate the looks and retro design, as you can tell from the picture below, but the engine is deffinatly a step in the right direction with variable intake and exhaust timing... i can't wait to take that baby for a test drive when it comes out just to see what vtec is like from a torquey v8 opossed to week weed wackers:)

I don't get that picture

its not brain surgery.. read the text..

the body looks like a design already used in the 60's..

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now does it? Sorry, its just not very funny or clever. I mean the current Mustang took cues from the 60s. yea its retro. But prehistoric and slut?

There is a big difference between retro and timeless.
This new Mustang looks like what a classic Mustang would have evolved into if it weren't molested by those bean counters at Ford. Then came those boxy econo designs of the 80's and 90's. To me this is a Mustang's true essence in design, round headlights, a V8 and a fastback. I always wanted to get a Mustang but the designs always looked blah to me. Like the last genereation Mustang, why do the healights look all mean and angry? And those redundant non-functional side and hood scoops?
I didn't like the concept car for the 2005 either it did not look like a Muscle car, but some immitation of one of those neon clad Japanese super cars. This car is going to be a collector's car some day, because like someone already stated earlier...this car is a work of art. :smokin:

honestly, i like the concept better, because I like the way they initially designed the front headlamps, with the stainless steel around the lights. plus the under fenders, and the hood, and just the whole front design on the concept looks better, i think
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/concept/s197/2005.jpg

i personally don't care for any type of retro design.. cars should be better and faster... Making it look like a model sold in the 60's kinda kills it for me.. just my opinion.. and whats up with the twin head lights that escaped at birth and went to the grill? I like everything else about the car. like the 300HP DOHC variable cam timing.. yea thats good stuff.. I think ford should just start making the GT with an Independent rear suspention too...

I think the concept was better but I still didn't like the front. If you looked straight at it, it looked like it was going to cry or something. They should of looked more closely at their own 60's models, those were much more aggressive looking.

I also wish they didn't put on that...eh what do you call it port window? on the production model. It looks like the 60's fastback but that car didn't have a window back there, just your main side ones. I know its there probably because its a huge blindspot but still...looked better without it.

honestly, i like the concept better, because I like the way they initially designed the front headlamps, with the stainless steel around the lights. plus the under fenders, and the hood, and just the whole front design on the concept looks better, i think
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/concept/s197/2005.jpg


I do admit that they should have put the concept cowl hood on the production model, but I still like the production model better.

i personally don't care for any type of retro design.. cars should be better and faster... Making it look like a model sold in the 60's kinda kills it for me.. just my opinion.. and whats up with the twin head lights that escaped at birth and went to the grill? I like everything else about the car. like the 300HP DOHC variable cam timing.. yea thats good stuff.. I think ford should just start making the GT with an Independent rear suspention too...


let me get this right.. you are saying that the "new" mustangs are better and faster than the "old" ones?

This is where the port window came from.....

www.fast-autos.net/shelby/shelbygt350h.html


And the 4 headlight set-up is a classic '69 look.


I liked the concept a little, but it was really too 'ricey' for me. I think the production model came out just right. Thank ( insert name of your religious preference (Or not) ) the designers were able to keep the bean counters out of the mix.

i think the new design is beautiful!
i did not care at all for the power or the looks of the 80's and 90's mustangs (just my opinion, don't flame) but i was allways a fan of the older ones and this car really brings that out.

one thing though, i liked the idea of the supercharged V8... why did they not include that anymore? that was an awesome idea. if you had the supercharged 390 hp engine of the (i think it was) 01-04 cars in the new body design that would be the best. anyway, it still gets the :bigthumb:

i think the new design is beautiful!
i did not care at all for the power or the looks of the 80's and 90's mustangs (just my opinion, don't flame) but i was allways a fan of the older ones and this car really brings that out.

one thing though, i liked the idea of the supercharged V8... why did they not include that anymore? that was an awesome idea. if you had the supercharged 390 hp engine of the (i think it was) 01-04 cars in the new body design that would be the best. anyway, it still gets the :bigthumb:

umm the 87-93 5.0s came with 225hp and 300 ft lbs of torque!! i think thats damn amazing for a car that was made in the 80s when they had to worry about the fucking environment

yeah this new style is tits, i agree that the front did not look right at first glance but it grew on me. i bet when it turns over after a few tweaks it will sound and look better the tits.

umm the 87-93 5.0s came with 225hp and 300 ft lbs of torque!! i think thats damn amazing for a car that was made in the 80s when they had to worry about the fucking environment

yea but at least from what i think, 225 hp is not nearly as good as 300 hp which is not nearly as good as 390 hp. and i could be wrong but i bet emmissions standards have only gotten stricter over time but i have not researched them (well a little bit when i did a paper on fuel cell powered cars but not much).

it is not like i am saying that they were slow cars either. hell, if i wanted to have a 1/4 mile demon, i would think that a mustang is one of the best, most prooven, cheapest ways to do it and that makes it a very impressive car. i am just saying that they did not impress me compared to other sports cars during that time STOCK either power or styleing wise. hell, my car made 300 hp during those same years with only a 3L V6. i have allways liked the older mustangs and over the last3 years or so i think ford has been making a lot of changes for the better. just my .02 though. any mustang of any year is still a sweet ride.

well, i don't know about you guys, but i have noticed a growth in power and overall engineering.. For one i think modern cars are much more efficient then older ones.. sure they had sweet ass big blocks and double carbs and all that, but now we can get just as much power out of a smaller engine and it's much more reliable.. And yes i do think the newer Mustangs make more power and are better then the last.. In 99, the SVT Cobra was the fastest and strongest production mustang, until 03 when the super chargered it.. And now they come with an independent rear suspention.. I mean lets face it the 5.0 were crappy unless you put some work into them.. They aren't nearly as fast stock for stock as modern stangs.. Not saying i don't like them, i'm just pointing out the growth.. And as for the 05 stang, i see growth in everything, but the retro styling crap.. thats just my thing, doesn't mean anything really other than i don't like retro styling..

Looking back at what came before, modern engines should have a lot more power than they do. For example, I get very close to 30mpg out of my 67 Mustang with a 200cid engine (I have used some technology not from the 60s but its still generally old school, the t5 swap should push it over the mark). It isn't the fastest car out there, but she pulls her own. I plan on taking her to a dyno this summer but I estimate about 150hp (one of the lightest body styles helps too). Compare that to the 3.8L, sure it (the 3.8) makes a more power (bigger displacement anyway), but the milage is the same and the car is heavier; they had years of develpment, I don't see that great of improvement.
I disagree with you on the relibility too. I have few problems with my old engines, but my 2.3L blew up. And if something does go wrong with older engines, its can usually be fixed easily by someone with a little knowledge. Modern cars are being made to require special tools, pretty soon, the shade tree mechanic will have to take his car somewhere for relatively minor things. Wait till these modern cars are over 20 years old, then its a fair comparison.
Sure it takes some work to get older engines up to modern factory levels, but if Ford really wanted to, they could have done it back then. Now don't get me wrong, I like the mordern cars too, if I had the money, I'd be 1st in line for the '05.
Most modern cars are ugly to me, whats up with the triangle thing most of them seem to have going on? What happened to curves?

i agree about the triangle thing.. seems as though cars are getting boxier, or jagged... Curves are nice...

The only thing I found cheesey about the new Stang are the somewhat exposed mufflers and for that matter the stock tailpipes. Although larger tips could simply be put on, those big & roundish mufflers look very cheap and Speedy-muflerish. If those got stuffed away under the body and only the exhaust pipes were visible from the back end it would look much better.

yea but at least from what i think, 225 hp is not nearly as good as 300 hp which is not nearly as good as 390 hp. and i could be wrong but i bet emmissions standards have only gotten stricter over time but i have not researched them (well a little bit when i did a paper on fuel cell powered cars but not much).

it is not like i am saying that they were slow cars either. hell, if i wanted to have a 1/4 mile demon, i would think that a mustang is one of the best, most prooven, cheapest ways to do it and that makes it a very impressive car. i am just saying that they did not impress me compared to other sports cars during that time STOCK either power or styleing wise. hell, my car made 300 hp during those same years with only a 3L V6. i have allways liked the older mustangs and over the last3 years or so i think ford has been making a lot of changes for the better. just my .02 though. any mustang of any year is still a sweet ride.

If you are talking about your VR4 how much did a VR4 cost vs. GT Stang of the same year... 225hp by todays standards is not very impressive but your talking about a car/engine 87 that is now 16 years old. Technology changes and improvements are made constantly. I know by today's standards a stock 5.0EFI engine isn't that impressive but use context and compare it to cars of the same year in the same price range and it fits in the landscape very well.

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=394881

according to this the 05 mustang gt's will bot be able to accept aftermarket products for a some time, not even a chip port! :eek7:

If you are talking about your VR4 how much did a VR4 cost vs. GT Stang of the same year... 225hp by todays standards is not very impressive but your talking about a car/engine 87 that is now 16 years old. Technology changes and improvements are made constantly. I know by today's standards a stock 5.0EFI engine isn't that impressive but use context and compare it to cars of the same year in the same price range and it fits in the landscape very well.


a very good point, i have allways been a firm believer that the mustang was pretty much the best bang for the buck that you can get. what did i 91 5.0 cost new? something in the range of $25k i would assume. that is a damn good deal for what you get and then they are one of if not the easiest cars to modify. a 91 vr-4 cost something like $40k new. not as good of a deal if you are talking hp per doller. (i got mine for $6800 though :icon16: )

but i do not think you understood my post for a few reasons. first i was comparing a 91 to a 91 so there was no age bias either way, second, i was saying that although all mustangs are a good buy and a classic car, i think the era of mustangs that i mentioned was one of the low points for the platform. hell, i could say the same thing about my 91 vr-4. there are a lot of benifits to having the second generation version of my car but they are all still cool cars i am saying the same thing about the mustangs of those years.

Go new stang. I have read almost all of the informaton from Ford Motor Co. and I believe it will be one of the best productions cars ever made.

a very good point, i have allways been a firm believer that the mustang was pretty much the best bang for the buck that you can get. what did i 91 5.0 cost new? something in the range of $25k i would assume. that is a damn good deal for what you get and then they are one of if not the easiest cars to modify. a 91 vr-4 cost something like $40k new. not as good of a deal if you are talking hp per doller. (i got mine for $6800 though :icon16: )

but i do not think you understood my post for a few reasons. first i was comparing a 91 to a 91 so there was no age bias either way, second, i was saying that although all mustangs are a good buy and a classic car, i think the era of mustangs that i mentioned was one of the low points for the platform. hell, i could say the same thing about my 91 vr-4. there are a lot of benifits to having the second generation version of my car but they are all still cool cars i am saying the same thing about the mustangs of those years.


A 91 5.0 wasn't 25K new man, more in the range of avg18G's for a GT. I know ya not bashing on Stangs but maybe picking on the 87-93 years a little. I admit by 93 it was getting a lil long in the tooth. But a low point for the platform is ridiculious... The 87-93 Mustang is the high point of the Mustang platform rivaling when the Mustang was first made. 87&88 Ford could not make enough Stangs to keep up with demand the last time that happened was 65!

These are the cars that caused "The 5.0 Revolution" which spurred an performance part market that can't be rivalved. And all the money and time invested in 4.6 aftermarket parts and sales are thanks to those cars. How many times has some had a 4.6 Mustang and some1 has said look a 5.0 or even owned a 4.6 and didn't realize they really have a 4.6 and thought it was a 5.0. In the Late 80's having a 5.0 was the hot thing!!! I'm not saying there were not better or faster cars made then. But the 5.0 Mustang has created a mystique for itself that owning a shiny nice 5.0 will get you as many looks as owning a new 2004 GT. This from a car that can be up to 13 years old and not rare at all!!! The 87-93 5.0 motto should be this "Loved or Hated but never Ignored!"

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=394881

according to this the 05 mustang gt's will bot be able to accept aftermarket products for a some time, not even a chip port! :eek7:

isnt a real e-mail, im pretty sure they plan on making it plenty tunable. The C&D article had a sidebox that talked about how they want to make a version capable of competing with the M3, im pretty sure they'll need some modability.

Otherwise i love this car, thinking about getting one

yeah i do think this e-mial is bs just thought i would bring it up ^.^