View Poll Results: How does the Mustang fit you or what do you think of the dimensions?
Not enough leg room
6
7.79%
not enough head room
1
1.30%
fits great
67
87.01%
Size could be reduced
3
3.90%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll
Trouble fitting into the mustang
7/7/06, 10:38 AM
#21
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by jarradasay
I realize that is a contradicting statement. You wouldnt think that a midsize sedan would compare dimensionaly to a sports coupe, is what I was trying to say.
I find it hard to believe that it is just OK in everyones' book for the mustang to weigh this much.
The why is why does the mustang have to weigh so much? and why is the trunk so big. You can't fit three people in it so why do you need trunk space for three golf bags? You do realize the mustang has over 6.5 feet of overhange between the front and the rear. What does that do to performance? The mustang grew nearly 5 inches longer in 05, but non of that made it into the passenger area, it has nearly the same legroom front and back as did the 04. it gained 222 lbs in 05. That is the Why.
I am not complaining about the interior being too roomy. Quite the contrary. If the mustang is so large then where is the space? There is more room in my brothers 72 mach and my dads 69 fastback. I'm not complaining about anything. What I am trying to do is create a debate to find improvement. Can for build the same caliber vehicle for a similar price but do so without it being tubby. How can it be accomplished. What is the general consensus. My personal opinion is that it is too heavy and could have the overhange trimmed down.
I find it hard to believe that it is just OK in everyones' book for the mustang to weigh this much.
The why is why does the mustang have to weigh so much? and why is the trunk so big. You can't fit three people in it so why do you need trunk space for three golf bags? You do realize the mustang has over 6.5 feet of overhange between the front and the rear. What does that do to performance? The mustang grew nearly 5 inches longer in 05, but non of that made it into the passenger area, it has nearly the same legroom front and back as did the 04. it gained 222 lbs in 05. That is the Why.
I am not complaining about the interior being too roomy. Quite the contrary. If the mustang is so large then where is the space? There is more room in my brothers 72 mach and my dads 69 fastback. I'm not complaining about anything. What I am trying to do is create a debate to find improvement. Can for build the same caliber vehicle for a similar price but do so without it being tubby. How can it be accomplished. What is the general consensus. My personal opinion is that it is too heavy and could have the overhange trimmed down.
Yeah, if you look at an Acura TL, it is the exact same length as the Stang, yet has much better use of interior space. I think it's a function of design. The Stang was never supposed to sit more than two adults except for really short jaunts. Long hood + short rear deck = poor interior volume for rear passengers.
Personally, I don't think the Mustang's trunk is too big at all, in fact it's pretty snug. It should be able to accomodate enough luggage for two people to go on a two week road trip.
As to the weight: V8 engine, accomodating drivetrain, added safety features like side doorbeams, blah, blah, blah - it all adds up to a car that MUST inevitably weigh more than its '60s counterparts. My buddy's IS350 is a smaller car with a V6 and still weighs in at 3500 lbs.
Overhang? Yeah, I first thought there was too much at the backend...maybe there still is. But overall, I think they got the proportions just right.
Wanna talk portly? Try the 4000 lbs Shelby!
7/7/06, 12:36 PM
#22
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah, it's a fatty alright.
here is a right up from the Wall Street Journal. (I know not the best of critics but an interesting bit of data nonetheless).
Attachment 4321
here is a right up from the Wall Street Journal. (I know not the best of critics but an interesting bit of data nonetheless).
Attachment 4321
7/7/06, 01:13 PM
#23
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 16, 2006
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 95SVTCobraVA
I have to go along with what John said. For me....
$25K fully loaded Camry
or
$27K Well optioned Mustang GT
The Mustang wins hands down. But, hey thats me
$25K fully loaded Camry
or
$27K Well optioned Mustang GT
The Mustang wins hands down. But, hey thats me
7/7/06, 03:56 PM
#24
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 14, 2006
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several reasons why it weighs what it does. First, it is built on a stiff, solid platform. Second, it's rear wheel drive. Third, it has a V8 that is not transversely mounted. Fourth, it is built to convey the ponycar image which includes long hood, short deck, and aggressive stance. Did I mention the awesome platform? I think they hit a home run with the stang. Sure, a 4 door Camray has more interior room, but so does every other four-door, vanilla people hauler. One gets you from point a to b, the other makes it worth the trip!
7/7/06, 04:46 PM
#25
GT Member
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stangster
Sure, a 4 door Camray has more interior room, but so does every other four-door, vanilla people hauler.
When I first drove my stang home I felt small in a big car. It felt much bigger inside than my 1990 5.0 LX did back then. It just took a couple of days for that feeling to go away. Once I got the seat adjusted right everything is cool. My passengers often mention that the passenger seat sits too low to the floor of the car. They should have offered a power passenger seat too!
7/13/06, 06:13 PM
#29
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 6,840
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
This car fits me perfectly. I'm 6' 0'', 160 lbs, but I have a 34" inseam (long legs. I couldn't fit at all in the SN95 model Mustangs, no matter how many times I played with the seat. It never went back far enough for me to get comfortable. This is another reason why I bought the S197 version. Plus the seats are WAY more comfortable than the old ones (sans the Mach1 seats). Cars are getting bigger for several reasons, and one of them is safety, hence the higher and flatter front fascias.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post